Five years ago, we could've read this same comment but with "LLMs" replaced with "blockchain" or "crypto".
Yes, it might totally be the case that in 5 years this comment reads as correctly predicting the future that is to come. But it's also possible that it doesn't.
It's not at all clear to me which things will persist in time at the moment they are getting popular. There are lots of technologies that look promising in the beginning and up fizzling out.
Browsers are useful now, and they have been useful for a while. It seems to me like a safer bet to invest on them still doing what they are useful at, in the case that the web keeps being a thing for a while still :)
oh, 100% yes! The job project i joined somewhat recently is a moderately-complex React web app, and none of the navigation elements are actual links. Everything is done by onClick handling, even thought many things are, conceptually, just links. I have no idea why this kind of thing is so widespread on the web front-end world.
> You need to kneel to the borrow-checker and develop something like a Stockholm syndrome before you find the language delicious.
That was not my experience at all. I liked the language from the get-go. And the more i dug into it, the more i found to like. I really appreciated the design of Rust's iterators, and traits, and general language design, way before i stumbled into any major issues with the borrow checker.
I feel like this depends very much on the programming style and probably on the domain. But i found that programming in a mostly "functions and simple data structures" way, passing things down to other functions that need them, and just processing data instead of "modeling the domain" into mutable and confusing "objects", i didn't really come across many lifetime-related issues that the borrow checker warns about.
And the few that i did found, they were actually errors on my part, and Rust detecting them was quite helpful. Things like trying to mutate a collection while also iterating it.
OOP has many short comings (enough that I would say it has been the single worst design paradigm that afflicted this industry), so Rust felt like a breath of fresh air to a c++ dev. However, many basic patterns that are employed when you are building embedded software are just needlessly difficult. Zig is the better C, and it’s just the better language for getting stuff done with total control. If I need to be high level with more I’ll reach for something else (c# provides all the optimisations I need if I’m not bit bashing). Rust feels like it has this one great trick, no gc and memory safety, but nothing else to offer.
> What inspired you to build this, I'd love to hear the story behind this.
Actually, i don't remember! Sorry, it's been a while (a decade, it seems... oh well)
This is probably my mind retro-creating a story, but i think this started with me wondering about how the Braille system worked. Like, did each Braille symbol map to a single letter, or to a whole syllable, or even a concept? Or, were more than one Braille symbol needed for some letters, like Morse?
Turns out each Braille symbol fits within a 2x4 grid of points. That's 2 possible states (point is on or off) for each of those 8 points. So 2^8 = 256 possible values. That's a byte! And luckily, Unicode encodes all those 256 possible values, and maps them to codepoints in a very systematic way.
So obviously, i started to wonder what kind of things could be represented on these Braille grids. The snake game was a natural fit, and a fun programming experience. But i also considered other things, like a horizontal Tetris. Or a Game of Life rendered on the URL, which i actually implemented(1), but i didn't find as entertaining as snake, because the 4-tile height restriction impeded any interesting patterns, like gliders (even with wrap-around logic). I think i even made some brute-force searching for horizontal or diagonal gliders trying out different born/survive rules(2), but couldn't find any interesting patterns, other than still life, blinkers, and some "moving walls" kind of things.
Anyways, that's for the Braille part. The idea of using the address bar to render the game, i have no idea where that came from TBH. Maybe i stole the idea from some other animated or pretty thing on URLs? I wish i remembered.
Yeah, sorry for that. The game actually used to work decently well on mobile browsers.
If you're brave enough to try on a mobile device, there's a way to see the current URL without escaping on the page: clicking on that "?". The mobile controls are clunky, but you'll be rewarded with the ability to share your highscores with friends! :P
The source code is not minified or anything, ctrl+u is your friend :)
IDK about the AI claim tho. The game has been there for like 10 years, so it's probably in the training data of these things. The bots might be able to replicate it, but they surely won't be able to enjoy it! (for now at least)
I've actually thought about rendering DOOM on the favicon. I don't see why it shouldn't be possible. Maybe @Franciscouzo could tackle that challenge! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45408825
Yes, i thought of doing that. The problem is that, while it would definitely help on the early game, it would also mess things badly on the late game. As you snake grows, it'll take more and more space on the grid, and you'll start seeing more and more janky whitespace-replacement characters.
The game gets faster as you progress, so it's definitely not a good idea to make it jankyer when you're try-harding it :P
I'd love to know of a way of "fixing" this jankyness issue properly. Without admitting defeat and rendering to some other text-admitting output, like the page <title>, as this oher snake game that was recently posted on Reddit does: https://old.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1n9z77e/snake_in_th...
But, for now, if you're actually trying to get a high score, i think the best approach is rendering the URL on page, by clicking on the "?"
Yes, it might totally be the case that in 5 years this comment reads as correctly predicting the future that is to come. But it's also possible that it doesn't.
It's not at all clear to me which things will persist in time at the moment they are getting popular. There are lots of technologies that look promising in the beginning and up fizzling out.
Browsers are useful now, and they have been useful for a while. It seems to me like a safer bet to invest on them still doing what they are useful at, in the case that the web keeps being a thing for a while still :)