101–110 of 159 posts
The demo at the top of the homepage ( https://reflect.net/ ) is a lot of fun. While I was watching, every time the puzzle got completed, people would shake their cursor in excitement, like saying, "yay we did it!!"
Don’t call it multiplayer, call it multiuser or concurrent user. Player assumes it’s a game. It’s not a game. It’s very very real. We are the agents. Cool project. Collaboration is hard. Synchronicity even harder. This makes steel become butter.
But I get your argument too. Naming is hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t even need to involve deletes; if all of these happen “simultaneously”: - client A appends “a” to list L - client B appends “b” to list L - client C appends “c” to list L the server will arbitrarily apply the appends in some order, and then send the result back to the clients. But, each of the clients has applied its append locally and is showing those results until it gets different information from the ser…
You modified the operations, I specifically chose a scenario where User C (in my example) introduces an undecidable situation. Appends are trivial to solve. >If your answer is like "we just send them the whole array again", this breaks the transactional model (x2). You also did that, whoops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it's LLW and you're no longer playing this game.
I don't know what LLW means, but you seem fixated on the acronym. It's just first come, first serve transaction ordering from the world I come from.
The demo at the top of the homepage ( https://reflect.net/ ) is a lot of fun. While I was watching, every time the puzzle got completed, people would shake their cursor in excitement, like saying, "yay we did it!!"
Going to have to check this out.
Hey hacker news! I'm one of the people behind this, happy to answer any questions.
Aaron is humble, so I'll do it for him! He created Greasemonkey and has had a hand in several groundbreaking browser innovations over the years.