This is a valuable interpretation of quantum computing. I appreciate it leading with a “so what” that so often gets lost in the fundraising hype surrounding any journalism in the space.

Doesn’t look like it, from their docs:

Non-goals

Patching. Difftastic output is intended for human consumption, and it does not generate patches that you can apply later. Use diff if you need a patch.

So obviously this is a very confrontational post, but tone aside, I kind of get it. I think it’s good that the author is up front and has made an explicit decision that they don’t want to put in the effort to build a public community around their software. They’re providing it as-is as a service to the public and they even indicate that they are open to other groups forking and putting the work into building a community. And crucially I’m not seeing an expectation that the community contributes back. I don’t think there is anything wrong in deciding where your interests and limits are, and I’ve seen other open-source projects die or rot when the maintainer runs out of time or loses interest, but without this being clearly communicated.

I agree with you that I personally wouldn’t try to contribute to a project like this since I also have no interest in building a community myself, but at least the project is up-front and clear about all this.

Very cool, any recipes or tips you could share?