laumars

28 ms·

271.
by laumars 5y ago
That’s property of the JIT compiler though, not a lack of compilation. You want to keep compiler times low so you only analyse functions on demand (and cache the byte code). If CPython behaved identical to Javas compiler people would moan a
272.
by laumars 5y ago
I’m not conflating the terms AOT and JIT. I’m using examples from how AOT compilers work to illustrate how modern JIT compilers might have passes that are described as an interpreter but that doesn’t make the language an interpreted langu
273.
by laumars 5y ago
Yeah, that screen refresh was harsh. Plays much better on TFT modded game gears though
274.
by laumars 5y ago
It wasn’t just the cost. The difference in battery life was night and day. The reason I bought a GB back as a teen despite better consoles being around was precisely because I wanted something that would last for several hours on the long d
275.
by laumars 5y ago
I much preferred the GB to the GG. The former took 3 batteries and lasted months. The latter took something like 6 batteries and only lasted 3 hours. While the GG was undoubtedly a better machine hardware wise, that counted for nothing when
276.
by laumars 5y ago
Interestingly the Wii is more or less the same hardware as the GC but with upgraded specs. In fact the Wii even has GC ports on it (for GC controllers and memory cards) and plays GC discs. Additionally the Wiimote was originally designed to
277.
by laumars 5y ago
Nice concept but there’s a few areas this can be refined to keep the difficulty the same while making the game much more charitable to players. 1. Given you have triangular blocks and diagonal movements, the board should probably be angled
278.
by laumars 5y ago
It’s compiled to a stack machine. Exactly like how a lot of AOT compiled languages originally used byte code too. Oddly enough they were never called “interpreted” languages. Which means the difference here isn’t the tech stack / compi
279.
by laumars 5y ago
That’s the 2nd time you’ve posted that and it wasn’t right the first time you said it either. CPython’s virtual machine is stack based thus the byte code is more than just tokenised source code. In fact there’d be very little point just tok
280.
by laumars 5y ago
As an old engineer who’s written a number of compilers in their time, I very much disagree with your analysis there. I posted more about my point below ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30208039 ) little point repeating
281.
by laumars 5y ago
That’s a different issue though. But I agree that’s a problem.
282.
by laumars 5y ago
It is but I don’t see that as a bad thing on this occasion because diversity in rendering engines, even if some are opinionated, is better than a Blink monoculture (or Trident before it)
283.
by laumars 5y ago
Here lies the problem. Just because a component of the v8 compiler is called an “interpreter” it doesn’t mean that JavaScript (via v8) is an interpreted language. Which is the point I’m making. Back in the 80s and 90s scripting languages of
284.
by laumars 5y ago
> In contemporary culture I see people trying to ban diverging opinions. There is no depth to it. So nuance is not permitted Yeah, I can’t say I entirely agree with banning of opinions either. > I don't see people blankly refuse
285.
by laumars 5y ago
It contains a byte code compiler. The point is that one of the stages of the compiler rather than the byte code being interpreted at runtime. In the link I posted: > V8 first generates an abstract syntax tree with its own parser.[12] The
286.
by laumars 5y ago
The v8 engine in Chrome and node is a JIT compiler not an interpreter. Moreover it even compiles to machine code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_(JavaScript_engine) You’d have more luck if you exampled Bash scripti
287.
by laumars 5y ago
It’s still compiled to byte code. It’s not been interpreted in decades. I’ll accept that the definition of “interpreter” is a little more blurred these days now that pretty much all JIT languages compile to byte code. But I’d argue that the
288.
by laumars 5y ago
Yeah, now I think about it, plenty of runtimes do. I have no idea why I posted that when I know it’s not true. Must have been related to the time of the morning and the lack of coffee.
289.
by laumars 5y ago
No popular language is interpreted these days outside of some specific domains where you might have an embedded scripting environment. But for all the major runtimes, even the JIT languages are now compiled. This has been true for as long a
290.
by laumars 5y ago
While that’s what they’d teach you in CS it’s missing enough nuance to be incorrect. > There is a limit to optimization, and that ends with optimized machine code. While that’s true, you overlook the cost of language abstractions. I’m do
291.
by laumars 5y ago
> To believe there is complete consensus between experts is a similar conspiracy theory. There’s a gulf of difference between accepting that scientific opinion is divided; and thinking experts cannot be trusted. Conflating the two is sim
292.
by laumars 5y ago
I’m only going to say this one last time: You started the conversation Even putting aside that I didn’t edit anything out of my post, unlike the ridiculous Nazi analogy you made, I couldn’t have changed the context of your post because y
293.
by laumars 5y ago
> Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. I’m not so sure about that. I think many of the opinions shared on social media are ones that people are passions about. Even
294.
by laumars 5y ago
It’s not a pedantic nitpick if the sole premise of your replies is repeatedly arguing the opposite position. This post, however, is a pedantic nitpick ;) And no, I cannot fool outside observers because I didn’t edit your post which contai
295.
by laumars 5y ago
Of course not. But comments don’t have to be hate speech to be damaging nonsense. And things don’t even have to be damaging for them to be too stupid for me to want to read. I only have a finite number of hours in the day, so why would I wa
296.
by laumars 5y ago
It can’t. Period. That’s simply not how conversations work. I mean if you cannot agree in that basic premise then there’s no hope in ever having a contextually specific conversation because someone can just shift the goal posts whenever it
297.
by laumars 5y ago
They didn’t mention type safety though (Unless they’ve edited their post?)
298.
by laumars 5y ago
The trick isn’t to look at the complete game code which will always have platform specific code but rather look at the tricks used by the game engines that are conceptual. Or in other words, look at the design rather than the implementation
299.
by laumars 5y ago
Your comment about fake news is about masks. The context of that is clear. My comment cannot retroactively change the context of a comment I’m replying to. Though this is another good example of why I gave up with Facebook (and an increasin
300.
by laumars 5y ago
I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consid

More ›