wtetzner

This sounded weird to me at first until I realized that this exactly what I do when watching a movie with subtitles.

I'm wondering if going back to cheaper and less capable hardware will actually result in better games. Forcing creativity, and maybe (by necessity) dropping the constant push for higher fidelity graphics. I think that push for fidelity is so costly that a large number of game developers don't even attempt to innovate in the rest of game design anymore.

For the ps6, they were already done with design and they'd need to let that go to waste to not put it out.

I guess nobody can predict the future, but this sounds like the sunk cost fallacy. E.g., if it's not going to sell well enough to recoup manufacturing costs, then producing the console will be more costly than just wasting the design effort anyway.

Maybe they don't need mass market sales to at least break even?

The author knows the orientation of his language better than anyone else.

^ I was only addressing this comment, not the specifics of Odin.

Odin is a general purpose language; is capable of being used in numerous different areas from application development, servers, graphics, games, kernels, CLI/TUIs, etc.

I would argue that being capable of doing anything is not in conflict with being oriented around something specific. Any Turing complete language is capable of those things.

Again, I don't even know Odin, so I'm not addressing whether or not it is game dev oriented. Only that the arguments themselves don't seem sound.

EDIT: grammar/formatting

that seems backwards to me

I'm not sure I completely understand which part you find backwards. Do you mean merging language runtimes and the OS is a bad idea, or that you think merging them would lead to more innovation?

I can see an argument for both (in terms of innovation), but being able to run only one language environment on a computer at a given time would make it much harder and heavy weight to use new languages. Or at the very least, new language runtimes.

Yeah, I kinda feel like when you're mentoring people, you should let them drive. If you're going to do it for them, you might as well just record a training video.

This was already addressed:

But with LLMs generating 7101 commits in less than a month that isn't feasible.

I don't think trying to understand LLM generated code is feasible for anything other than very small projects. IMO it's a big problem with using LLMs for coding. Sure, they can generate a bunch of stuff, but in some ways that just makes the real problems of software development even harder.

I kinda feel like using memorization techniques for things that require deeper understanding probably isn't the most efficient way to learn.

IMO you want to be actively trying to map the new concepts to things you already understand, and constantly working to update your mental model.

So your solution is to just read through all 1M+ lines of code?

What about just not installing sketchy extensions?

You could add lisp to mspaint and mspaint suddenly becomes awesome somehow?

TBH that does sound pretty awesome, assuming good primitive operations were exposed through the Lisp API.

Yeah, I don't know who thought that website was a good idea.

Their argument is that all team members should use the same tools, and I guess that is a valid point.

Why is that a valid point?

Given his work on Smalltalk, I suspect he means that he prefers the line between language runtime and operating system to be erased, and they be the same thing.

I disagree though. While there are benefits to that approach, I feel like language innovation would be stifled to a certain degree.

But can't you continue to run older bytecode versions on newer JVMs? I think you can also specify the source version separately.

What I find especially weird is that I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone describe vim as a puzzle that's fun to solve. The most common sentiment is that it has a learning curve, but ends up being worth it.

The author knows the orientation of his language better than anyone else.

The author knows the intention of the language better than anyone else, but that doesn't mean it isn't especially game dev oriented.

I've thought it would be cool to have a console where later updates are installed on the game cartridge directly.

The side-effect most people didn't consider is that you never really own a digital copy.

This is true for consoles, but on GoG for example you can download the DRM offline installer for the games you buy. So going purely digital doesn't have to be terrible on its own. But of course, for consoles it will be.

If consumers don't like that option, an alternative can be a perpetual $5/year subscription that additional provides in-game stickers.

Another alternative is to just buy the used games and play them on the old consoles.

Yeah, Sony is stupid to be leaving money on the table like that

Are they though? Console sales have been dropping. It's only money left on the table if people are also purchasing consoles & games in the same quantities. How many people are just not buying these games because they are digital only?

TBH though, I think the ship has sailed a long time ago. Many games with physical media aren't really playable without downloadable updates anyway. Another reason the modern gaming experience has gotten worse.

But what's the point of even releasing the next console? The current console generation has barely gotten started, and developers have barely taken advantage of the new hardware.

Maybe they need to look at releasing a cheaper console and making more quality games instead of constantly pushing so hard on graphics. Graphics help sales to an extent, but it's clearly not the whole story, given the popularity of the Wii or Switch. I think the people in charge no longer understand gaming, and are really struggling to produce games that will draw in large crowds again.

So I think their strategy is to abandon the mass market and sell to price unconscious consumers who will also pay more for games.

Kinda seems like it. I'm curious to see what happens with that, because even people who so far have been willing to pay more will stop being customers if they can't produce an experience that's worth paying for. Maybe I'm in the minority, but the first-party PlayStation games all feel very samey to me.

The economic incentives will only come when enough people stop buying these kinds of games. Whether or not that will ever happen remains to be seen.

Do you expect to keep driving a rented car forever? Even if the car is only available through rent?

TBH I'd be a lot happier if they just called in "renting" instead of "buying" the movie. If you don't get to own it, why do they get to refer to it as "buying"?

I think it's because further north the Sun is at a lower angle in the sky. So high frequency waves like UV (needed for Vitamin D production) get filtered out by passing through more of the atmosphere.

Lower wavelengths like IR (heat) can more easily pass through the atmosphere. And since the Sun is lower in the sky, it hits more of your body. So you might feel more of the heat, while still getting less UV.

How is that dishonest? They were replying to:

Nobody has even hinted that it would be nice to have a 3rd party store or the ability to run whatever OS on them freely.

If people are going through the trouble to defeat DRM, I would say that's more than a hint that people want the ability to run whatever OS on them freely.

Unfortunately I've had websites strip out the house number in the "cleaned up" address.

But without building it all up and then slowly deleting it, you wouldn't have known which 110 lines were the ones to keep ;)

You can also just do `git commit -a` to commit all modified files.

I'm struggling to understand how this output is a problem. There a whole bunch of things that make git user-unfriendly, but I don't think this is one of them.

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the `git push` output is somehow adding friction to users. Do you really think that even non-programmer users won't just read it as "it's still doing stuff"? Sure, you could hide it behind a --verbose flag, but then if it fails half way through, it's too late to add the flag. Even a user who doesn't understand the output could then copy/paste it into Google or an LLM to figure out what happened.

It is the minimal level of abstraction between you and the vcs and it can hardly be helped by a 'nice frontend' when things go wrong. And they will; they always do.

How is this different from any other piece of software ever? When things go wrong, the artist is stuck either way. The only solution is software that always works...