3 ms·
I disagree. I think it misses the point completely. The C64 had limitations not because of its relative capabilities from today but t because of its literal li
by hnlmorg 3y ago
I disagree. I think it misses the point completely.
The C64 had limitations not because of its relative capabilities from today but t because of its literal limitations. Even back in 80s and 90s, when those systems were still relevant, people were pushing the capabilities of those systems for fun.
There are demo scenes for web browsers of sorts but they’re not the same as the C64 era because there simply isn’t any limitations on what you can do in a modern browser. So instead of the demos like in this article, you get people either implementing $game in x lines of code (often with about a hundred thousand lines of additional dependencies that weren’t counted), or someone building interesting mini games in WebGL.
However when you look back at the web prior to WebGL, WASM, etc, there were the more C64-like demos because the web back then was limited. Which is when you saw things like Linux running on an x86 emulator in pure JavaScript.
So it absolutely is about the fun of trying to build something that the platform shouldn’t support given the platform’s limitations. For some people, it is like a sudoku for crossword. The fun in the challenge.
Now you can argue whether calling that an “art form” is pretentious not. But art is subjective so I say just live and let live on that particular point. If people think of it as an art then it is art to them. If you don’t then it’s not art to you. But it’s silly to argue other whether it is or isn’t art.