21–30 of 128 posts
Interesting read. Until safari on my iPhone 7 crashed. Could it be a memory leak? Or simply too many animations for my ageing phone to handle?
For me animations mixed with text is bad UX. Would be better with buttons to start the animations when you have read the relevant paragraph.
In Haskell, one can make more general combinators in the following way: type Anim a = (Duration -> a, Maybe Duration) -- Linear interpolation linear :: Anim Duration linear = (id, Nothing) -- Sequencing seq :: Anim a -> Anim b -> Anim (Either a b) seq (f, Nothing) g = (\t -> Left $ f t, Nothing) seq (f, Just df) (g, dg) = (\t -> if t Anim b -> Anim (a, b) par (f, df) (g, dg) = (\t -> (f t, g t), max df dg) -- Constan…
typo here:
seq (f, Maybe df) (g, dg) t
and `par` should be
par :: Anim a -> Anim b -> Anim (a, b)
par (f, df) (g, dg) = (\t -> (f t, g t), max df dg)
i'm not sure about `par` - if my understanding of Anim is right, it'll take the shorter animation over its specified duration. what if it was something like:
par a@(_, da) b@(_, db) = (ab, max da db)
where ab t = (a `at` t, b `at` t)
at :: Anim a -> Duration -> a
at (f, Nothing) t = f t
-- freeze when t exceeds dur, i.e. the animation is done
at (f, Just dur) t = f (min dur t)
or is that not what the duration represents? i.e. is this correct:
stretch :: Float -> Anim a -> Anim a
stretch factor (f, dur) = (\t -> f (t / factor), (factor *) dur)In Haskell, one can make more general combinators in the following way: type Anim a = (Duration -> a, Maybe Duration) -- Linear interpolation linear :: Anim Duration linear = (id, Nothing) -- Sequencing seq :: Anim a -> Anim b -> Anim (Either a b) seq (f, Nothing) g = (\t -> Left $ f t, Nothing) seq (f, Just df) (g, dg) = (\t -> if t Anim b -> Anim (a, b) par (f, df) (g, dg) = (\t -> (f t, g t), max df dg) -- Constan…
pedantic stuff: typo here: seq (f, Maybe df) (g, dg) t s/Maybe/Just/ and `par` should be par :: Anim a -> Anim b -> Anim (a, b) par (f, df) (g, dg) = (\t -> (f t, g t), max df dg) --- i'm not sure about `par` - if my understanding of Anim is right, it'll take the shorter animation over its specified duration. what if it was something like: par a@(_, da) b@(_, db) = (ab, max da db) where ab t = (a `at` t, b `at` t) at…
Maybe I'll try and make a small library of it if there isn't already. I've never posted something on Hackage.
In Haskell, one can make more general combinators in the following way: type Anim a = (Duration -> a, Maybe Duration) -- Linear interpolation linear :: Anim Duration linear = (id, Nothing) -- Sequencing seq :: Anim a -> Anim b -> Anim (Either a b) seq (f, Nothing) g = (\t -> Left $ f t, Nothing) seq (f, Just df) (g, dg) = (\t -> if t Anim b -> Anim (a, b) par (f, df) (g, dg) = (\t -> (f t, g t), max df dg) -- Constan…
pedantic stuff: typo here: seq (f, Maybe df) (g, dg) t s/Maybe/Just/ and `par` should be par :: Anim a -> Anim b -> Anim (a, b) par (f, df) (g, dg) = (\t -> (f t, g t), max df dg) --- i'm not sure about `par` - if my understanding of Anim is right, it'll take the shorter animation over its specified duration. what if it was something like: par a@(_, da) b@(_, db) = (ab, max da db) where ab t = (a `at` t, b `at` t) at…
As I was writing it my headspace was that the duration was for seq to know when to switch. I wasn't really thinking about stopping the animation too.
(I also notices that my seq is wrong. The subsequent animation should start at the beginning, so it should be `g (t - df)`, not `g t`
I believe you are correct. Your implementation is more at the heart of what I wanted to show. . The main point I wanted to get across was the interface itself.
Interestingly, if you watch the Erlang: The Movie ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXmOlCy0oBM ) they use the term 'declarative programming' to refer to what we would now call 'functional programming'. It's an interesting way of thinking about it - these sort of declarative interfaces are very simple in languages with first class function support.
I wrote this to show off how to write a compact and powerful animation library. It turned out to be a nice case study in declarative programming as I wrote it! I'd love feedback on the API design, website design, and content as I'm trying to actively improve in all of these areas.
Not that I want to disparage as the library looks neat and clear, but is that what declarative means in 2020 ? The code looks like mainly a builder pattern for an animation datastructure. I've always heard declarative as a sort of synonym to programs defined in terms of equational reasoning such as Lustre for instance - a rule of thumb to separate declarative languages from imperative languages is that in declarative…
Back in the day when I was making videogames ( http://www.mysterystudio.com ), I implemented something similar for my framework. Most of the framework was declarative. There were Sprite objects that had an associated Image and a position (among other things). The onUpdate(dt) method of the "screen" didn't explicitly draw things on the screen, it only updated positions and other attributes of the Sprites, and the rend…
My friends and I love playing "Murder, She Wrote" on a big TV screen during downtime at LAN parties. We streamed it on Twitch for a while. We're big fans, great work!
If you write a comment saying x is y. Then rename x to be y. The comment adds a layer of abstraction. Now every time you encounter x you refer to the table of abstractions to get to y.
In a similar way the library has shortened function names. This is another layer of abstraction so you need to decompress the shortened function name once again.
1. Don't use parentheses in comments. They make things more visually confusing when javascript imposes enough syntactic clutter as it is.
2. What's with /* */ ? Doesn't js allow keyword arguments?
3. Your method names are probably a little short for my taste. I'd be happier with sequence() and parallel() instead of seq() and par(). Par especially seems a little too obscure when first encountering it.
4. "cx = location | cr = radius" - why not allow both forms? - or just the clearer one rather than the shorter one.