I love (not) these posts that assume we know what it is.
Some things are aimed at a group of people, and written with that in mind. Someone closing a project/stopping maintenance of something, usually write directly to the group of users of the software.
To expect everything to contain information about everything someone could not know, means everything would have to be extremely verbose. We have search engines, typing "4coder" and finding the website took me around 2 seconds, I'm sure you'd be able to do it just as fast.
Still, the argument is the same - a person is posting an article on a news site for the sole purpose of other people seeing (consuming) it.
I consider it basic decency to create a good presentation when you're showing something in people's news feed.
>I consider it basic decency to create a good presentation when you're showing something in people's news feed.
The individual posting the article may not be the owner of the code base thus making it impossible for the poster to alter the presentation.
If the owner of the code base has not posted a link for others' "consumption," they would have conformed to your expectations.
Good point, I didn't consider that.
The point of view I'm coming from is that while it's impossible to put all possible information in a README (and such level of detail would probably make it even less readable, like Whitehead and Russel's Principia Mathematica) - there are some things that are reasonable to expect on any kind of public repository (I assume it's a public repository because of the README's public-facing style - "Welcome to the 4coder code base. [...] In this readme you will find: [...]"), such as "what is the purpose of this program".
I know nobody owes anything to nobody, and such criticism might be seen as rude - since we're basically criticizing volunteers - but consider the fact that feedback is a major part of how we figure out our mistakes. If someone is posting their work online, it would be reasonable to assume that they care about their work and want to make it better. Without (constructive) criticism, they would never receive the feedback required for improving. Praise is pleasant and should be given when it's due, but criticism is also useful information.
Edit: grammar
I love how people don't bother providing information that would be easy to provide, the URL to the website would be handy as here it isn't even included in the README on github, then people get all het up when others mention the lack of information.
You don't have to write your things FOR EVERYONE but it isn't unreasonable to suggest that folks are going to link to random projects on github and that other folks may end up on said project through unexpected means, and with no context, or with unexpected context. It probably follows that that _maybe_ spending the time to write _one sentence_ to describe WTF you're looking if you want ANYONE to consume it isn't unreasonable.