> The author just didn't compile an executable for them, that's all Would love to see the author's actual comment on this rather than your presumptions about i

> The author just didn't compile an executable for them, that's all Would love to see the author's actual comment on this rather than your presumptions about it. If it's trivial to compile and run, why leave out a huge market for what you make out to be minutes of effort? > Our browsers spend several 60MBs per day to show us ads When I'm browsing, I run an ad blocker. As a digital nomad, I'm also regularly on 4G and hit my data caps often. I would never wait for 60MB of download for a simple game. > yet this is no demo, and is a cross platform game Right, I just used some examples to show how little memory a game like Tetris needs, including high quality production implementations, like the original NES version, as well as most major Tetris PC, console and handheld releases in the last 30 years. The JS examples above are inherently cross platform. A browser based game will run on every single consumer grade device that has access to the internet. Higher quality JS versions can be found, including the official version: https://tetris.com/play-tetris https://tetris.com/play-tetris That version is 4.9MB, 2.5MB of which are MP3 files, much of the rest of it is high-quality full-color PNG assets. Clearly the assets should be reduced in size. No need to ship a runtime if you use JS. Another benefit is it runs in a sandboxed browser environment and I don't have to worry about running an executable locally. Again, all this is a response to your assertion that "It's probably 10x more efficient than a possible JS implementation, tho." It doesn't run on my OS, and that's part of the reason I'm complaining about it.