MCArth

7 ms·

1.
by MCArth 1y ago
This is completely out of touch with my worldview. I've lived in and around London my whole life and, while "see it say it sorted" is a common joke, I've never once heard someone say they dislike them
2.
by MCArth 4y ago
Google analytics numbers don't include users with adblock
3.
by MCArth 4y ago
Yup, but developer productivity with web library (e.g. react) > no library vanilla dom manipulation > canvas
4.
by MCArth 4y ago
no need to roll your own solution. If you want to ship a game, go high level :D For web native rendering pixijs is good for 2d (and phaser is good also a good entry level). For 3d theres threejs/babylonjs. There's also unity, whic
5.
by MCArth 4y ago
As long as you don't read your writes and use transform for animations it won't cost you more than 0.5ms to 1ms per frame (could it be better? Sure. But developer productivity is important.) I use react in my game platform bloxd.i
6.
by MCArth 4y ago
Tbh when making a web game you'd be better served using standard web UI in tandem with your game even if canvas text wasn't blurry. Web libraries (react, etc) are very advanced and it'd be incredibly hard for a js game engine
7.
by MCArth 4y ago
article says fungible raised $300 million (_not_ at a $300 million valuation)
8.
by MCArth 4y ago
This isn't true! I've encountered many bugs in safari (fullscreen pointer lock not working on most html elements comes to mind), and they certainly do not value quality.
9.
by MCArth 4y ago
That's like saying we should be writing all our applications in assembly. No. Developer productivity is important, and it does impact the end user in quality and amount of features.
10.
by MCArth 4y ago
This just isn't true! There are so many features that have not been supported long after other browsers implemented them (webgl 2 comes to mind, though that is finally available - 4% of global web users still don't have support du
11.
by MCArth 4y ago
It's not just regex, it's a long list of features and bugs. The OP was simply giving an example. I've encountered many time-wasting bugs on safari in the past, which have simply been open for several years.
12.
by MCArth 4y ago
Amazing!
13.
by MCArth 4y ago
Music to my ears - from my own experience, safari is a pain to deal with. I've run into many bugs that haven't been fixed for years, and they've lagged behind in implementing standards like WebGL 2. Hopefully this will force
14.
by MCArth 4y ago
I agree, if we had all started with it, it is nice. But it completely breaks backwards compatibility with the whole existing node.js ecosystem, costing countless developer hours. Backwards compatibility is a serious concern. It seems very l
15.
by MCArth 4y ago
I agree, if we had all started with it, it is nice. But it completely breaks backwards compatibility with the whole existing node.js ecosystem, costing countless developer hours. It seems very likely to me a solution could have been found t
16.
by MCArth 4y ago
Because for lots of code, they are interchangeable, and being able to write your code that runs on both the server and client can be very useful. Not to mention that splitting the ecosystem down the middle would result in less high quality
17.
by MCArth 4y ago
I've spent a significant number of hours bashing my head against the same issue and reading tons of GitHub issue threads It seems to come down to the es module spec being half baked so that it's not possible to implement them in a
18.
by MCArth 4y ago
I completely disagree with this as someone who's spent a significant number of hours bashing my head against the same issue and reading tons of GitHub issue threads It seems to come down to the es module spec being half baked so that i