5 ms·

Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed similar feedback at [0] and provided some more context at [1]. I do want to briefly note that the JS VM is custom and n

Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed similar feedback at [0] and provided some more context at [1]. I do want to briefly note that the JS VM is custom and not QuickJS. It also implemented subsystems like the DOM, CSS cascade, inline/block/table layouts, paint systems, text pipeline, and chrome, and I'd push back against the assertion that it merely calls out to external code. I addressed these points in more detail at [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46650998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46650998 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46655608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46655608

nindalf 8mo ago
> I do want to briefly note that the JS VM is custom and not QuickJS It's hard to verify because your project didn't actually compile. But now that you've fixed the compilation manually, can you demonstrate the javascript actually executing? Some of the people who got the slop compiling claimed credibly that it isn't executing any JavaScript. You merely have to compile your code, run the binary and open this page - http://acid3.acidtests.org http://acid3.acidtests.org. Feel free to post a video of yourself doing this. Try to avoid the embellishment that has characterised this effort so far.
- Snuggly73 8mo ago
  This is from the "official" build - https://imgur.com/fqGLjSA https://imgur.com/fqGLjSA The "in progress" build has a slightly different rendering but the same result
  - nindalf 8mo ago
    Yeah, it's not executing any JavaScript. Hey Mr. Wilson! You've spent millions creating this worthless slop. How about making sure that the code is actually being executed? Or is that not necessary to raise millions more in VC funding?