I can totally see @Jonathan_Blow watching this and immediately wincing at the moment the software looks like it has a hiccup. https://twitter.com/ArtItNow1/status/1225146344047812610 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @daniel_carvalho
but even with garbage collection. why would the program stutter with only a few hundred 'entities'
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I literally had to optimize a piece of JavaScript code today that was trying to set the state of a grid of 128x128 elements _once_, something that you wouldn't even think about in C, but which took _two seconds_ to do in JavaScript because it is amazing and wonderful.
7 replies 2 retweets 46 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and
That sounds weird. Sure JavaScript is not fast by C standards, but you should be able to pull a few hundred million operations per second.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @NoHatCoder and
I mean the sad part about the whole thing is I originally typed in 256x256, but that wouldn't even load in the browser, basically. It ground to a halt on my i9. No JS, just 65536 static elements on an HTML page is way into the HTML 7.0+ timeframe for feasibility, apparently.
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yes. I mean if all you do is hand a JIT some loops with math in them, unless they screwed something up, it _should_ be reasonable speed. It's the object model that is a disaster, and that is also largely JavaScript's fault for not having thought about speed there.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.