3 ms·
i dont really understand why these things are considered impressive. all of the technically challenging bits are handled by the enormous stack of technology inv
by jheriko 13y ago
i dont really understand why these things are considered impressive. all of the technically challenging bits are handled by the enormous stack of technology involved.
granted the js is highly size optimised, and that probably required some reasonable effort. i see nothing clever here at all. also, the fact that its 35 lines is a weird measure - i can see ways to reduce that trivially - why isn't everything to do with the render baked into the final loop?.
the byte count is a more useful measure.
4k/64k executable demos are much more impressive - even though there is a stack of technology underneath you have to do things like butcher your C/C++ standard libraries or not use them at all...
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago> i dont really understand why these things are considered impressive. all of the technically challenging bits are handled by the enormous stack of technology involved. For one thing, it's a reminder of how awesome the technology stack that we all take for granted is.
- DanBC 13y agoFeel free to release a bunch of your own Thing in 30 lines, or to code-golf all the existing Things in 30 lines to 5 lines, or whatever.
- ggambetta 13y agoFine, 959 bytes: http://gabrielgambetta.com/tiny_raytracer.html http://gabrielgambetta.com/tiny_raytracer.html