Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TypeScript types can run DOOM [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 391 posts

Re: TypeScript types can run DOOM [video]

#331

Post by [deleted] »

mhnthrow wrote: post #197
josephg wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We do not USE the thing we're building by and large. Yes, thankyou, that's quite obvious judging by the quality of most software. It really is amazing how bad most software made for non-developers is. Like, as software engineers, we understand how essential version control is. We made git and github for ourselves. But nobody has bothered building that functionality for people who edit word documents all day. Or peo…

> My partner works in a CMS all day at work. Every change she makes is pushed directly to production. There's no review process. No staging. No testing. No change control or rollback. If anyone messes something up, they get blamed for "taking down the app". As a software engineer, I look on in horror. Fwiw that just sounds like an immature CMS - I've seen review/approval workflows, branches, preview environments etc…

[deleted]

Re: TypeScript types can run DOOM [video]

#332

Post by [deleted] »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #236
notfed wrote: post #179

> "It was a brutal year long journey of 18 hour days" [to run doom in TypeScript types] This is some serious dedication for what at first blush may sound to many to be a completely unserious, or even useless, achievement. But I say to those people: a DOOM proof is just as worthy of praise as any other academic mathematical proof, and has the advantage of being verifiable by laymen. Congrats on this amazing achievemen…

I don't thinks statements like this are meant to be read literally in American English. IE US English speakers always fond of telling me how they work X hours in a day, or they went N days without sleep. Which used to really impress me, until I realised "wait... do they just exaggerate as matter of course"? And then I realised - of course they do; these are people for whom every purchase is an "upgrade"; where a bicy…

[deleted]

Re: TypeScript types can run DOOM [video]

#333

Post by epolanski »

flanbiscuit wrote: post #204

"But I'm not one of those fancy 10x developers. Instead of a master of craftsmanship, I'm more a master of close-enough-manship" I definitely relate to this comment. and he also says "It was a brutal year long journey of 18 hour days" I think people are looking for those unicorn 10x devs that are like Good Will Hunting for code, but forget that there are those devs that might not get things right away but never stop…

> and he also says "It was a brutal year long journey of 18 hour days"

Which is likely an hyperbole.

Re: TypeScript types can run DOOM [video]

#334

Post by mseepgood »

ramesh31 wrote: post #11

Brilliant. The TS type system is a true marvel of modern software engineering. Its a shame that it hasn't just been developed into a proper fully fledged runtime at this point. Something like Deno is the closest we'll get it seems.

It is not a mark of quality, quite the opposite.

Re: TypeScript types can run DOOM [video]

#338

Post by joseda-hg »

R3Y-P2U-jz3PVKd wrote: post #42

I hope he learned something useful while doing it and it seems like he did, because, although regarding all the comments here I'll likely be alone in my assessment, I just see a massive waste of time & effort? He described it as "a brutal year-long journey of 18 hour days" and he didn't bootstrap a company, he wrote Doom in Typescript types...?! The "epic" doom music underlying his story just makes it seem even more…

This reads to me like "After running the marathon he just went from point A to Point B, and that effort could have been better spent elsewhere"

Re: TypeScript types can run DOOM [video]

#339

Post by KPGv2 »

gr4vityWall wrote: post #313
LAC-Tech wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't thinks statements like this are meant to be read literally in American English. IE US English speakers always fond of telling me how they work X hours in a day, or they went N days without sleep. Which used to really impress me, until I realised "wait... do they just exaggerate as matter of course"? And then I realised - of course they do; these are people for whom every purchase is an "upgrade"; where a bicy…

> I don't thinks statements like this are meant to be read literally in American English. I don't know, when I got hyperfocused on a side-project a few years ago, I was dedicating almost all my awake time to it. 12+ hours a day, every day, including weekends, for months. Surprisingly, I didn't burn out. I was just so interested in it, I couldn't stop, and even started neglecting other things to work more on it. I nev…

This happened to me once. It was like attaining enlightenment. My company worked with a F100 that had, as a core piece of their business, a piece of software they'd commissioned in the 80s that they still used in the 2010s to make billion dollar decisions. But no one knew how it made the calculations they relied on. This was before attorneys knew to include source code in procurement, the original devs at a third party code shop was long gone.

We were already working on something for them, and on a whim, one of their VPs asked my company if we could take a look at it.

So that's how the mathematician at the company (me) ended up waking up, sitting in front of a whiteboard, and losing all concept of time until my wife got home from work at night, not eating, not sleeping, staring at decompiled assembly and stepping through line by line for weeks. (I don't want to say months because I'm sure someone will come roast my ass for taking too long, but "months" is honestly more accurate; in fairness, I was learning every technique used on the fly)

It was a prolonged, repeated flow state that I've only ever experienced during really competitive tennis as a high schooler. Losing all concept of time and space, hyper focused on one task that has completely spread to all parts of your consciousness.

Re: TypeScript types can run DOOM [video]

#340

Post by pornel »

mseepgood wrote: post #330
akkad33 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen papers saying at least Java and Python type systems are turing complete. I wouldn't surprised if all type systems are turing complete

No, good language designers take care that their type system is not Turing complete.

Is there a mainstream language where this still holds true?

From what I've seen most languages don't want to have a Turing complete type system, but end up with one anyway. It doesn't take much, so it's easy to end up with it accidentally and/or by adding conveniences that don't seem programmable, e.g. associated types and type equality.

Post reply on HN