Sometimes I wish they would put in the README just a brief description of which part of the stack they're responsible for and how they used it.
I see that it uses some type of WebAssembly technology and some CAD/CAM API that gets translated over. I also see they integrated with Three.js,
but what I would like to know is how much of the whole "thing" are they responsible for?
Are they responsible for all that code that draws the viewport and lets the user pan around? Are they responsible for that Microsoft Office ribbon UI? Are they responsible for the internationalization? What parts did they do? When I look at this, it's so sophisticated it just makes me feel think about the widening divide as far as AI skill gap goes. Was AI used?
Now they don't owe me that, of course, and that's nothing on them, kudos to them! It's a brilliant project.
I’ve found ”So what did you do” is usually obvious to domain experts and incomprehensible without understanding of the domain without _very_ long readme that would be comparable in complexity to a review article.
>Are they responsible for that Microsoft Office ribbon UI?
Well, that's the beauty of open source. Go read it.
https://github.com/xiangechen/chili3d/blob/43161b9f51021f2ef...
>When I look at this, it's so sophisticated it just makes me feel think about the widening divide as far as AI skill gap goes. Was AI used?
I feel like this was the "So tell me about your father.." turn here , did you really care about the details or did you want to wax poetic about AI?
If you want to know who made it, maybe try asking Microsoft, not expecting a random open-source project to hold the answers.
On the Widening AI Skill Gap No, sophisticated software doesn't automatically mean AI was used. Your immediate jump to an "AI skill gap" just because something looks well-made says more about your assumptions than about the software itself. Perhaps the real "skill gap" is in telling the difference between good engineering and AI magic.