Because I benchmarked both on my dataset and found that Tesseract was better for my use-case?

I’ve tested a bunch of vision models on particularly difficult documents (handwritten in a German script that’s no longer used), and I have yet to be impressed. They’re good at BSing to the point that you almost think they nailed it, until you realize that it’s mostly/all made-up text that doesn’t appear in the document.

> It's still 40.

Is it, though? If the important parts of the code are new, does it matter that other parts are older or derived from older code? (Of course, I think this whole line of thought is pointless; what matters is not age, but how well it works, and tesseract generally does seem to work.)