I have no problem with AI code, but it should not be advertised as hand-written.
We'll see more of these and hopefully with standard licenses like MIT (why go for a weird license on this one?) but what's interesting is how far you can get based on interpreting the standards and running industry tests. That suggest we need more written standards information (implementation guidance) and more tests.
A browser in a memory unsafe language that looks like it's 20 years old, "written" by a sloperator and it doesn't render a bunch of stuff.
With the amount of modern security that depends on the browser, I can't see how one could recommend this.
I also would be a lot less critical of this project if it wasn't claiming to be at a 1.0.0 state (which implies a lot more functionality than the Standards Compliance section boasts), and if it wasn't making an attempt to be a serious contender with its little marketing icons like "Best viewed in Nordstjernen"
I'll look forward to more developments with Norfstjernen. What an exciting time for me browser engines!
That said, you can still distribute it under a licence, it just means that it's not necessarily enforceable, but that's ultimately for the judge to decide.
> No automated test suite — verify by running the browser.
> No code comments beyond one header line per file