Maybe I just need to get over it, but this post reeks of Claude-isms and it immediately makes me stop caring about what the post has to say.
Obviously having an LLM write these kinds of things is the norm now, but what doesn't have to be the norm is the writing style. The way Claude (and other popular LLMs) write is so obnoxious and verbose. I think a simple pass of "make this more terse and to the point" would do wonders here.
Is Claude really this bad, though?
E.g. "The problem that never went away was async. Every framework, including ours, treated it as a condition that happened to it."
Async treated as a condition?
And a condition happens?
And on grammar, the second it is ... the framework??
I rather suspect this is second-order output. Writings of a brain rotted by "AI".
Shame, because enough of the message gets through the fog to tell me the whole message would be worth receiving. I wish the project every success.
It was human written, fed to AI, human adjusted, re-fed, and around again — for days, with dozens of reviewers in between. (GPT 5.6 Sol doing the AI half of the lifting, for what it's worth.) So "nobody even looked at it" is the one criticism I can rule out. Everybody looked at it.
But you aren't wrong. The marketting heavy parts are where the tone shows. And honestly those are the parts I write worst. Exactly why I lean on AI there. When I ran before/after comparisons past reviewers, the polished versions kept winning. Maybe that's the norm creeping into how all of us write now. I notice it in my own sentences too. The words I choose. But given the choice between slightly synthetic and authentically clumsy, I tested both and shipped the one that read better.
As much as the content and tech behind it is really cool, and I appreciate Ryan's ideas it does seem like a shame to culminate so much work with a very "sloppy" finish