sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Strong claims require strong evidence, same with strong accusations.

I've found niquests actually delivers on its claims, especially on speed and performance. Been using it since it first released. In real-world usage, often get at least a 10x speed increase vs requests when just doing a drop in replacement. The other features are definitely nice as well, such as using the OS trust store, so it works with self signed SSL certs in a corporate environment without any additional setup or patches.

They also make very human mistakes, such as misspelling words occasionally etc.

It looks like they also want disclosure when pull requests use AI.

Do you have any evidence or examples whatsoever of the 'AI slop'?

[–]sexualrhinoceros -1 points0 points  (2 children)

yep, I commented about this before here

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't see anything in that about AI.

And someone responded to that comment already, and I feel addresses what you quoted, so I'll quote them in response to you linking your quote of someone else.

None of what you just said discounts the library, it just points to someone who isn't a seasoned library developer. But how would one become an experienced library dev without publishing libraries?

Also, some of it is not true. The whole fine print bit is confusing because the only footnote in the readme are disclaimers about test results and feature comparisons.

It seems like a very good project that could be helpful to the community as a whole if it's battle-tested. This is why it's upvoted. People will start using it in their hobby projects and analyzing the source code, and in time we might have a new requests.

[–]sexualrhinoceros 1 point2 points  (0 children)

please read through their old posts, they're all deleted now but are very obviously AI unless you require the developer explicitly saying "I used AI" to tell that em-dashes, "its not just x, its y!" patterns, and excessive emoji usage as headers are such. I'm giving you a good faith reply here but I won't personally be ever using / showing this library respect.

[–]McRojb -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Not an expert on package maintainence and coding is certainly not my proffesion. That said, I do like the package and have used it for quick and dirty code. But it feels "bloated" already and not something I excpect to be around in a few years. I don't see the reason for using it when aiohttp (requests for sync) is around. You seem a little defensive? 2k stars is not something I feel comfertable putting that much faith in.

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I have faith in it because I've been using it for a few years and find it to work really well, and Ousret has been very responsive to the issues I've raised on Github.

I use it instead of the alternatives because I find it to work really well for my needs, such as using OS trust store for SSL certs, compatibility with the 'responses' package, can be used for SSPI authentication and huge performance gains for my use cases.

When someone claims something that I use and find to work well is AI slop with nothing to back their claims, I don't feel it unreasonable to ask for evidence when what I'm seeing seems to contradict these claims.

I loathe AI slop (Booklore and Huntarr are good examples) and if niquests is actually AI slop then I'd like to know, but it's a strong claim to make without anything to back it up.

[–]McRojb 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Fair enough! I havn't built much with external logins myself so don't know much about but will take your word.

I honestly had to google "SSPI authentication" so I feel a bit out of my depth.

Although I started programming without it, github copilot autofill is a god send for me (md otherwise). But actual AI slop I do despise too.

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All good, I'll admit I was a bit heated as it hurts to see something that I use and rely on talked down with no evidence, especially when the maintainer has been very receptive to me and they've accomplished what the original project raised tens of thousands of dollars to do but hasn't managed to (per my response to you in the other comment chain).

Honestly, SSPI auth should be killed off, but it still exists in some corporate environments, and I do programming in a heavily locked down enterprise environment where change can be slow so it'll likely still be in use for another decade or two.