rubber_duck

97 ms·

901.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
Microsoft opensourced a cross platform official implementation of .NET called CoreCLR - and altough slightly young you can do what you just said and they support it trough Azure on linux and offer OSX builds. Also Mono took better parts of
902.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
See I don't have a problem with this argument if you really made the evaluation - that is if you really can't find the stuff you need. But I don't ever hear that, at best I see that argument based on assumptions (without ch
903.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
Programmimg is soo based on trends and not on technical merits : Dart is a great language - it's way more feature complete than typescript, it comes bundeled with official package manager, build system and a dev server (huge value comp
904.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
Who carea if it's novel or not ? Patents are a government granted monopoly defended on the premise that there would be a strong disincentive to invest in R&D if someone could just copy your deaign and a strong incentive for you to
905.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
I agree movies can rely less on CGI and since the camera/acting hasn't made dramatic leaps like game tech it doesn't really matter that much. I think you are misunderstanding me with HL comment - I'm not saying you need
906.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
>But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen. I don't get how people can argue stuff like this should even be covered by paten
907.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
>I always question the run for pixels and physics when a 'simple' 2d world sucked you that much. I loved the old games with shoddy graphics, spent hundreds of hours playing them in high school - but going back to them I just
908.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
And also stuff that's not games (like say interactive stores, presentations, etc.) can easily hit that frame rate because of simpler scenes
909.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
This is one part of the CLJS story that I think prevented it from becoming more widespread - it lacked a good REPL/compile story for a long time because of closure compiler. I would almost characterize that decision as a premature opti
910.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
JSX always felt hacky - the cleanest thing I've seen in this area is ClojureScript and Reagent. And that goes for the whole React stack - it just feels like it was made in a wrong language - even the surrounding stuff like Redux. Every
911.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
I think his example using LINQ vs loops is not realistic - if you're using arrays like he is who's going to use LINQ with that ? The only reason I would specify a concrete type like that is if I cared about performance - otherwise
912.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
Not really, aside from smaller binary size parsing a binary bytecode vs parsinga a JS pseudo bytecode is a huge difference in load time + they get to optimize it for efficient translation vs trying to hack JS constructs to get desired seman
913.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
While I agree with you I feel like that's a technical problem - if you want to argue from that position it should be a question of "how do we keep them in captivity efficiently/safely" both for them and humans rather tha
914.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
>For example: NPM compiling C-dependencies together with ECMAScript/JavaScript into a single WebAssembly package that can then run inside the browser. The reason you'd write stuff in C is (aside from performance) to access nati
915.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
It's lower level than that.
916.
by rubber_duck 11y ago
>Because people will take it and say "Hey, with WebAssembly I can rip out the entire DOM and roll my own layout and text rendering directly to a canvas like some sort of game engine! By avoiding standard webpage structures, we can m