This thing isn't trying to do standard text layout faster than the browser, it's trying to enable more exotic/dynamic/custom layouts while keeping reasonable performance. Take a look at the demos linked in the repo's readme; those are things which the browser's layout engine can't do on its own.

If you only perform layout once, it doesn't save any work. If you need to reflow many times, it saves a lot.

If the company would like their T&C to carry the force of a binding contract upon me, then yes, keeping track of my agreement seems like the absolute bare minimum they must do.

Either these things are real contracts or they are not. The idea that it's too onerous for a company to keep track of its contractual agreements is absurd. That's giving them all the benefits of a real contract with none of the obligations.

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

Browsers are currently incentivised to add a bunch of new features outside their traditional role. Some people prefer to keep the browser's role simple. It's not ideological and it's not "hating".

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46289881

Points: 4

# Comments: 3

Sure, you can check if they gave you a string instead of a number. But if you receive an array of nested objects, are you going to traverse the whole graph and check every property? If the caller gives you a callback, do you check if it returns the correct value? If that callback itself returns a function, do you check that function's return type too? And will you check these things at every single function boundary?

This kind of paranoid runtime type-checking would completely dominate the code, and nobody does it. Many invariants which exist at compile-time cannot be meaningfully checked at runtime, even if you wanted to. All you can do is offer a type-safe interface, trust your callers to respect it, and check for a few common mistakes at the boundary. You cannot protect your code against other code calling it incorrectly, and in practice nobody does. This is equally true for JS and TS.

When I saw this adaptation back in 2004, I was amazed because the web didn't even HAVE an API for its pixel buffer; the canvas element didn't arrive until a year later! All the destructible/buildable terrain here is faked out with stacked `img` elements. They had to simulate a simple form of graphics with a more complex one, because that's all the platform made available.

It's very good.

This is a linear sequence of bits, which when interpreted as a Game of Life board, "prints" an exact copy of itself 2 pixels to the right (leaving no trace of the original).

I suppose its job would be easier if it only had to construct a copy of itself rather than "moving" itself, but I enjoy the interpretation that it's a linear "tape" of bits which prints its own code transposed by 2 pixels, and takes an unfathomable amount of time and space to do so. Beautiful.

Describing its design, the readme for libxev says "credit to this awesome blog post" and links to the same Tigerbeetle post in this submission.

Her main collaborator, co-creator and producer of many years is the artist AG Cook, who founded the label PC Music. He appears often in her music videos and gets mentioned in her lyrics. His own solo work plays a lot with pairing the artificial and the organic, taking the "slick" aesthetics of electronic pop to abrasive extremes and placing it next to vulnerability and gentleness.

This is my favourite piece of his work (both the song and the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH2wQ5speuU

Charli's work or his might not suit your taste! But these are real people doing interesting stuff and playing with the form. It's not fake.