It’s not what the trailer shows, it’s how it’s showing it. It’s just a slide show of things happening. Fade transitions. Awkward cuts between shots. Almost nothing in sync with the music. The release date is stitched to the end as another clip. The villain’s theme just starts playing while the music is still going. Shows the date and location in the beginning as if it’s going to be story related, then just shows gameplay until the end…
Wow that’s a terrible trailer. They could put a bit of effort into it
I read the thread and now I’m more confused. Can someone explain what this is about to an outsider?
Edit: every thread I see is talking about talking about a discussion. What’s the discussion??
Edit 2: Ok so far I got that this Jon guy doesn’t like positive discrimination and ‘politics’ and also worked at the defense company that sponsored nix but doesn’t support that (?) (which is also related to the diversity problem (?)) and there are also two open letters that are related (?) and people have been mean to him in threads. Anyone who isn’t involved in nix community thinks good of him because he’s very active and talks agreeably
I wish they’d all stop talking so superficially and just get to the point
You could try downgrading the driver and/or using the x build of wine. I don’t remember any game doing that before 550, although I might’ve just not come across them
That’s the xwayland impicit sync stutter. No fix until Nvidia releases 555 drivers with explicit sync compatibility (beta on may 15) and no vulkan fix until 560 drivers.
In my experience most games don’t exhibit it, although the number that do has increased in recent driver versions where Nvidia tried workarounds for implicit sync. You could try downgrading to 545 and see if it has the issue.
Edit: just saw you said you used the Wayland build of wine. I guess that also has the same issue
Doesn’t typescript compile to js anyways? Is it obfuscated?
I’ve been listening to stuff you missed in history class pod from the beginning and whenever something about computers, science or tech comes up they start being like hush hush don’t worry we won’t actually talk about it; as if the mere mention will scare away listeners
Read that knowing nothing of lisp before and nothing clicked tbh.
When talking about tools that simplify writing boilerplate, it only makes sense to me to call them code generatiors if they generate code for another language. Within a single language a tool that simplifies complex tasks is just a library or could be implemented as a library. I don’t see the point with programmers not utilizing ‘code generation’ due to it requiring external tools. They say that if such tools existed in the language natively:
we could save tremendous amounts of time by creating simple bits of code that do mundane code generation for us!
If code is to be reused you can just put it in a function, and doing that doesn’t take more effort than putting it in a code generation thingy. They preach how the xml script (and lisp I guess) lets you introduce new operators and change the syntax tree to make things easier, but don’t acknowledge that functions, operator overriding etc accomplish the same thing only with different syntax, then go on to say this:
We can add packages, classes, methods, but we cannot extend Java to make addition of new operators possible. Yet we can do it to our heart’s content in XML - its syntax tree isn’t restricted by anything except our interpreter!
What difference does it make that the syntax tree changes depending on your code vs the call stack changes depending on your code? Of course if you define an operator (apparently also called a function in lisp) somewhere else it’ll look better than doing each step one by one in the java example. Treating functions as keywords feels like a completely arbitrary decision. Honestly they could claim lisp has no keywords/operators and it would be more believable. If there is to be a syntax tree, the parenthesis seem to be a better choice for what changes it than the functions that just determine what happens at each step like any other function. And even going by their definition, I like having a syntax that does a limited number of things in a more visually distinct way more than a syntax does limitless things all in the same monotonous way.
Lisp comes with a very compact set of built in functions - the necessary minimum. The rest of the language is implemented as a standard library in Lisp itself.
Isn’t that how every programming language works? It feels unfair to raise this as an advantage against a markup language.
Data being code and code being data sounded like it was leading to something interesting until it was revealed that functions are a seperate type and that you need to mark non-function lists with an operator for them to not get interpreted as functions. Apart from the visual similarity in how it’s written due to the syntax limitations of the language, data doesn’t seem any more code in lisp than evaluating strings in python. If the data is valid code it’ll work, otherwise it won’t.
The only compelling part was where the same compiler for the code is used to parse incoming data and perform operations on it, but even that doesn’t feel like a game changer unless you’re forbidden from using libraries for parsing.
Finally I’m not sure how the article relates to code being math neither. It just felt like inventing new words to call existing things and insisting that they’re different. Or maybe I just didn’t get it at all. Sorry if this was uncalled for. It’s just that I had expected more after being promised enlightenment by the article
Lord emperor
Learner here. I don’t like nesting single use functions. The moment I follow a function and it’s just another abstraction for more functions I start feeling dread. Also I can’t help but feel bad for cluttering the name space by breaking out single use functions in general, even if they’re private. Seeing the sentiment here, guess I gotta get used to it
For instance, there would have been no need for the
asynckeyword in the language itself.
Can you explain how?
That looks more like a web browser than anything else. Does it have any advantages over opening the pages in a browser?
It’s called “bad editing”