Were any people who work for the garment industry involved in GNL's creation, or is it something that's coming entirely from tech people?

▲

Edman274 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Tech person - there's only one contributor, it's less than 48 hours old, and appears to be primarily vibe coded with the assistance of Claude Code. No mentions of types of stitches even though it's crucial to understanding how a garment is made. I wonder too if this grammar can represent a glove made from a single strand of yarn.

▲

giraffe_lady 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If I understand what you mean, that's more in the realm of knitting which does already have several rigorous notations in common use.

This is for pattern drafting, which assumes knit or woven fabric as the raw material for the garment construction, along with the pattern.

That said it still does not seem suitable for this task based on my experience sewing from and modifying patterns.

▲

AlotOfReading an hour ago | parent [-]

Stitches are load-bearing, so specifying a bartack or a flatlock seems pretty important to unambiguously specifying a garment. Along the same lines, I don't see a way to specify hardware that isn't for closures, e.g. the rivets used to reinforce denim pockets.

	▲	giraffe_lady an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I know, I make clothes too. Probably unlike the creator of this thing. But the comment I was responding to seemed to be using "stitch" in the way knitters use it, not the way sewists use it. No pattern drafting system can represent the stitches necessary to create a panel of knit fabric, that's simply not the level of abstraction they work at. This thing isn't good but not for the reason of being unable to represent a one-strand mitten or whatever, which is what I think they were getting at.

▲

barbarr an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's Claude Code slop