I spent only two minutes reading their documentation and it’s clear no one did any proofreading and it’s full of mistakes made by non-native speakers.

Example: the second sentence on the first page says “softwares” but “software” is a mass noun that cannot be pluralized.

Example: the third page about tokens has some zipped code to “calculate the token usage for your intput/output” and obviously “intput” should be “input” but misspelled.

As a company that produces LLMs, they could have even used their own LLM to edit their documentation to fix grammar issues, and yet they did not.

Maybe I’m just extra sensitive to grammar and spelling issues but this kind of lack of attention to detail is a huge subconscious turnoff. I had to fight my urge to close the tab.

Yeah I think those details are the least of most peoples concerns. I can't vouch one way or another for DeepSeek's documentation but for me what matters most when reading documentation is being able to get the information I want efficiently, not whether someone spelled "software" as "softwares", which is a very common spelling in Asia as an FYI.

I read OpenAI or Anthropic's documentation nowadays and it's just so full of useless junk and self-congratulation that makes it a miserable experience to go through. It's a real shame because OpenAI used to write stellar documentation and publish really lucid papers just few years ago.

No one cares about this kind of stuff. 99% of the devs are not English native speakers, what do you expect ? It works and we all can understand it

The tool calling Python example would have benefitted from actually parsing the tool call. As is, it explains almost nothing.

i dont think deepseek will ever recover from this. huge loss for them. they will stop the pursuit of agi cause of one hn user and a comma.

This tells me a real developer wrote the docs, instead of someone with good English writing skills but is less technical.

> they could have even used their own LLM to edit their documentation to fix grammar issues

In my experience companies who do this rarely stop at using LLMs to fix grammar issues. It becomes full on LLM speak quite fast, especially if there isn’t a native English speaker in the room who can discern what’s good and bad writing.

pedantry

i prefer it cuz it indicates they didnt use an LLM to write their documentations and that its human generated

> Example: the second sentence on the first page says “softwares” but “software” is a mass noun that cannot be pluralized.

I constantly see and hear this mistake from actual humans too.

It's fairly ironic that your own comment contains run-on sentences, speculative claims and phrasing peculiarities like "could have even" instead of "could even have". Perhaps you are less sensitive to this than you think!

Nobody cares, we're talking about quality documentation here, not a couple spelling mistakes