This is cool, but like the other comment said I think it would be prudent to mention in the README that this uses the Airstream project for the AirPlay implementation: https://github.com/qasim/Airstream
I thought this was a new Airplay implementation from the way it was described, but then I looked at the source code and realized there wasn’t much there. Nothing wrong with wrapping a library, but it’s nice to mention the technologies used and set expectations.
Libraries are made to be used as the base for the actual application. I checked your GitHub link - no clue how I’d use it without coding an entire solution.
But it’s a common courtesy to credit the foundations you build upon when they’re doing the heavy lifting for an app.
If you look at the Airstream repo, you’ll see that it prominently credits the underlying library that it uses for a lot of the AirPlay foundational work.
These threads are really about discussing the work and less about policing projects' formatting, names, credits, etc. It's just way, way, way less interesting.
> These threads are really about discussing the work
That’s what I was trying to do. I opened up the code, started reading, and realized it wasn’t really what I thought it was.
I’m not trying to “police” arbitrary things, I’m trying to explain what the project is.
There’s been a recent trend of “Show HN” projects taking credit for other people’s work, like the “KVSplit” Show HN from several weeks ago that claimed credit for some upstream features in another project by wrapping it up in a separate repo and writing some LLM-generated claims.
A link to the utilized library is not simply drive-by grump. I agree with a lot of complaints about non-substantive grouchiness on HN but I can’t be sold on this one.
I thought this was a new Airplay implementation from the way it was described, but then I looked at the source code and realized there wasn’t much there. Nothing wrong with wrapping a library, but it’s nice to mention the technologies used and set expectations.