I tried emulating it a few years before that when I didn't have any workable screen for my PS2 and that was not so good. A game that pushed the original hardware to its limit also pushed the emulator past its limit. Might be better with more powerful hardware than mine?

However, I've heard the remake is perfectly good, and surely easier to play with modern PC hardware!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48291228

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48275295

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Can you go into that a little more? Do you have specific examples that make you sad?

The first example that comes to my mind is the show Community, which I really enjoy, and which doesn't make me sad at all.

P.S. an article I linked to in my original response was https://www.filfre.net/2025/01/the-crpg-renaissance-part-1-f... which I mentioned as it talks about a historical standout in the genre but puts it in the context of the copycats and the schlock. It's now irrelevant to my comment, but I'd like to link to it anyway.

Oh? Why is that?

Tangential, but that reminds of the Haskell "hoogle" tool which allows searching for functions _by type_ across a large database of libraries, even by abstract types. So you might wonder "hmm what's that function that has a type structure like `t a -> (a -> t b) -> t b`?" and it'll happily tell you that it's monad `bind`

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47696925

Points: 9

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47696919

Points: 6

# Comments: 0

At least, I'm hoping that's what they meant. If they really meant horizontal and vertical in the way they used it then I've got no idea either.

The format made for good lunchtime reading -- the care you put into making it easily readable shows. Are the illustrations actually hand-drawn? Looking forward to the next part(s) that you hinted at!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47293195

Points: 128

# Comments: 21

We've also recently absorbed a vanilla(-ish) JS codebase largely developed by one dev which provides a point of comparison.

Angular has plenty of boilerplate and idiosyncrasy, but it being opinionated and "pattern-y" has advantages when you want devs who infrequently touch it to be able to jump in and make changes with some level of consistency.

Additionally -- and this is anecdotal, but I suspect it's a common part of working with a plain JS codebase -- tracking the flow of data through the Angular application is usually soooo much more straightforward, even when it involves navigating through many layers and files. The Angular codebase only has N types of things, and they tend to relate to each other in the same ways, and they're often quite explicit (such as explicitly defined component element names in HTML templates). In contrast the JS app has whatever it has built up with very few constraints keeping it consistent. Obviously that could be improved with discipline and structure, but reducing that requirement is one of the things a framework gets you.

I can't comment too much on React as my one experience working in a proper React codebase was in a team who were largely as clueless as me :)

Adam Something has a video responding to it that's worth watching too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oafm733nI6U