61–70 of 391 posts
Honestly every time I worked on TypeScript codebase and the type definition "any" started popping out more and more often, I felt I'm starring into the abyss.
Playground with example here: https://tinyurl.com/5ahs366a
Doom must be the most ported.
Not to be a grouch, but I feel like this could be way more optimized
https://github.com/MichiganTypeScript/typescript-types-only-...
Though the fact that the actual converter that converts from WASM to TypeScript types is in Rust makes it lose a bit of charm, but still.
Like Flappy Bird in TypeScript types did: https://zackoverflow.dev/writing/flappy-bird-in-type-level-t...
Plus three months of recording/cutting/editing the video. Well done.
Honestly every time I worked on TypeScript codebase and the type definition "any" started popping out more and more often, I felt I'm starring into the abyss.
There are valid use cases for any (such as type constraints). Playground with example here: https://tinyurl.com/5ahs366a
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are valid use cases for any (such as type constraints). Playground with example here: https://tinyurl.com/5ahs366a
That was the tipping point in transition from "we are serious and use static typing instead of lame JavaScript" into "ok we lost control over this thing".
This is perfectly sound and valid from both a practical and theoretical pov.
Which is why I was pointing out that there are scenarios like constraints where any not only makes sense but is the correct type.
Amazing work. I'm interested in the choice of WASM - presumably any target that can run DOOM could've been used? Of which there are innumerable choices I assume. Was it for symbolic reasons or genuinely the most useful target?
Amazing work. I'm interested in the choice of WASM - presumably any target that can run DOOM could've been used? Of which there are innumerable choices I assume. Was it for symbolic reasons or genuinely the most useful target?
even in pure JS: https://github.com/evanw/polywasm