9 ms·

These kinds of ray casters are really cool, but at this point in time I don't care about how small the code base is, just make a really cool ray caster in JavaS

These kinds of ray casters are really cool, but at this point in time I don't care about how small the code base is, just make a really cool ray caster in JavaScript and don't worry about how big the code is (within reasonable limits)! I just want an awesome JavaScript ray caster library to be honest. :)

RBerenguel 12y ago
There was one posted a few weeks ago. 128 bytes is incredibly impressive. You may not care, the world may not care, but reducing code so much is a work of art
- RodgerTheGreat 12y ago
  For comparison, here's a 256 byte raycaster targeting the commodore 64. The included assembly source is considerably more readable and enlightening, but it also doesn't feature texture mapping like this one: http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=61298 http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=61298
jzzskijj 12y ago
A interactive raycaster in 128 bytes and you "don't care". No matter what year it is, it is a feat that really says "BEAT DIS".
dguaraglia 12y ago
... and that's exactly why you don't get why this guys are trying to achieve. This guys are counter-culture. They are trying to write the smallest functional ray caster/sound engine, you name it. They target maximum functionality with minimal bloat. Coming to a post like this to say you want a ray caster in JS 'no matter how big it is' is very misguided; the equivalent of going to a Tesla dealership (assuming such a thing existed) and telling the dealer 'well, this is all amazing technology and stuff, but what I really want is a Humvee with two cupholders on each seat, 5 TVs and a driver, I don't care if I need an atomic power plant to keep it running'. It's all fine and dandy here, HN is an open group after all. But don't go with that kind of comment to a 'scene' forum or they'll chew your head off :)
jameshart 12y ago
I'm not sure you appreciate quite how small 128 bytes is; for comparison, your entire comment is 305 bytes. This one's just 128.
- cpayne 12y ago
  I think that is the best argument you could make!
na85 12y ago
What a typical HN response. Do everything in JavaScript.
leorocky 12y ago
Looks like this comment of mine was irrevocably wrong and completely irredeemable. No apology is possible and I'm sorry for my very existence. Go social voting sites! Go internet culture! Yay.
- fyolnish 12y ago
  To be perfectly honest, you should be sorry.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- bunderbunder 12y ago
  A harsh response, yes. But frankly, what you said was harsh. An interactive raycaster in an executable an order of magnitude smaller than most networks' minimum transmission unit is an incredible accomplishment, and your response is to essentially drop trou and take a dump on it because teh w3b 4evaz.
  - leorocky 12y ago
    What I said wasn't harsh, it just wasn't apparently enough genuflection and awe to appease the people that happened to be interested enough to check the comments on this link. I care about as much as I did yesterday, which is not nothing. You and everyone else who demands more will just have to deal with it.
    - fl0wenol 12y ago
      No; if you don't appreciate something because you suspect you don't understand or lack context (as you expressed), you should just keep your mouth shut lest you sound like an idiot.

RBerenguel 12y ago

There was one posted a few weeks ago. 128 bytes is incredibly impressive. You may not care, the world may not care, but reducing code so much is a work of art

RodgerTheGreat 12y ago
For comparison, here's a 256 byte raycaster targeting the commodore 64. The included assembly source is considerably more readable and enlightening, but it also doesn't feature texture mapping like this one: http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=61298 http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=61298

jzzskijj 12y ago

A interactive raycaster in 128 bytes and you "don't care". No matter what year it is, it is a feat that really says "BEAT DIS".

dguaraglia 12y ago

... and that's exactly why you don't get why this guys are trying to achieve. This guys are counter-culture. They are trying to write the smallest functional ray caster/sound engine, you name it. They target maximum functionality with minimal bloat. Coming to a post like this to say you want a ray caster in JS 'no matter how big it is' is very misguided; the equivalent of going to a Tesla dealership (assuming such a thing existed) and telling the dealer 'well, this is all amazing technology and stuff, but what I really want is a Humvee with two cupholders on each seat, 5 TVs and a driver, I don't care if I need an atomic power plant to keep it running'. It's all fine and dandy here, HN is an open group after all. But don't go with that kind of comment to a 'scene' forum or they'll chew your head off :)

jameshart 12y ago

I'm not sure you appreciate quite how small 128 bytes is; for comparison, your entire comment is 305 bytes. This one's just 128.

cpayne 12y ago
I think that is the best argument you could make!

na85 12y ago

What a typical HN response. Do everything in JavaScript.

leorocky 12y ago

Looks like this comment of mine was irrevocably wrong and completely irredeemable. No apology is possible and I'm sorry for my very existence. Go social voting sites! Go internet culture! Yay.

fyolnish 12y ago
To be perfectly honest, you should be sorry.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
bunderbunder 12y ago
A harsh response, yes. But frankly, what you said was harsh. An interactive raycaster in an executable an order of magnitude smaller than most networks' minimum transmission unit is an incredible accomplishment, and your response is to essentially drop trou and take a dump on it because teh w3b 4evaz.
- leorocky 12y ago
  What I said wasn't harsh, it just wasn't apparently enough genuflection and awe to appease the people that happened to be interested enough to check the comments on this link. I care about as much as I did yesterday, which is not nothing. You and everyone else who demands more will just have to deal with it.
  - fl0wenol 12y ago
    No; if you don't appreciate something because you suspect you don't understand or lack context (as you expressed), you should just keep your mouth shut lest you sound like an idiot.