What's the problem if a site is vibecoded? We will be seeing it more often, I recon. Let's get used to it. On the other hand, perhaps a disclaimer is in order.
We are used to this, hence why folks here point it out.
https://github.com/l-labs/master-benchmark
Which can also be run with minimal modifications on ngn and others.
For database the h2o.ai for duckDB really is a solid hard bench IMHO:
https://github.com/l-labs/rust_ipc/blob/master/tests/ipc_tes...
Which is ~6k tests (Rust is actually what I use to drive release testing)
Unknown quality is the absence of information, you can’t have a signal for it.
If you are using “unknown” as a euphemism for “poor”, which is the most obvious thing that makes the signal meaningful in the direction that seems apparent from context, why?.
That's also why "closed-source" was mentioned in the same sentence. Two missing signals.
That's also why the author keeps pointing to the benchmarks and test suite, which is the signal they'd like us to judge by. Seems entirely reasonable to me!
Typically if a site is well designed, that used to be a signal that a lot of resources had been invested into the project. Now that signal is rather noisy.
Here, is particularly bad, as the main page is just complete slop bullet points. What does 'end-to-end column compression' mean? or 'uniform bytes at every layer'?
It's difficult to understand at a glance now, if this project is going to be abandonware in a week or if someone actually spending time on this. If the creator can't be bothered to read it, why should I?
Personally, I'm also very weary of Claude design-isms. Once you learn them, you see them everywhere.
That said the mail group has more details and the blog posts are effectively internal posts turned into shorter (less code) versions. The binary itself is years of effort - with small improvements over many years and shaving a few kb each time ... 'built the old way' like amish furniture :)
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160306154854/http://kx.com/q/d...