This is hands down some of the most constructive feedback we’ve received. You hit the nail on the head.

We definitely fell into the author’s trap of structuring docs "bottom-up" (Prerequisites -> Basic Syntax -> Advanced Concepts) rather than leading with our actual core innovation: choreography.

We are restructuring the main README/docs front page right now to lead immediately with a concrete example of choreographic execution (e.g., atomic multi-node orchestration / client-server emitting) before getting into standard syntax.

Really appreciate you taking the time to dig into the docs/ dir to pull this out it’s a huge help for our presentation.

▲

adastra22 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You should avoid LLMs in your communications.

▲

chime 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You should still keep doing the bottom-up approach for the rest of the docs. Just update the README first paragraph or two as the gp says.

	▲	jerf 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, strong agree, normalcy resumes at some point. But you want the hook in first. I mean, I'm phrasing that in marketing terms, but in this case it's in harmony with what your users want anyhow. We want to know ASAP why we should care about this language. So it works for everyone. Of course when it comes time to deliver the promise, normal programming language documentation is the way it is for a reason.

▲

bramadityaw 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you should really put some of the content in RESEARCH.md to the README.md. The language's core idea shouldn't just be known to contributors.

▲

irq-1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> linear/affine types and a perceus reference counting

You should put these up front also.

▲

valorzard 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this REALLY reads like claude responded to this comment, so I really hope that I'm just mistaken and you just naturally talk like this

▲

Jabbles 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it's quite rude to reply to a well thought out comment with AI slop