I GOT THE DOMAIN! I FINALLY GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!1 🥳🎉
Paint.NET is now at https://t.co/ZJTUII4bVG!
Well, it will be just as soon as I push all the buttons to migrate content and set up redirects from getpaint.net etc. For now it's just a "hey go here" redirect page.
HID Remapper now works with the Steam Controller! All inputs are usable, including the trackpads, touch sensors and accelerometer/gyro. Use it to play on the Switch or do anything else you can think of.
I'm very excited to announce `raylib 6.0`! 😄
With +2000 commits and +200 contributors, this is the biggest release ever!💯
- Release details: https://t.co/1alHEqsfIM
- Discord: https://t.co/YojL0ogs13
- Webpage: https://t.co/wdthgF9gtY
**code once, play everywhere!**
The question is not whether there are sources, the question is whether Wikipedia's policy allows acknowledging them.
In the modern world, the best sources on whether JangaFX's software is written in Odin are the people who wrote it. They say that it is. Their website literally has a link on the home page menu that says "Odin programming language - our language of choice". If that is unpersuasive, a JangaFX founder replied to this very thread to tell you that their codebase is written in Odin :)
But as far as I can tell from having seen this sort of thing play out multiple times, in Wikipedia's world, the most accurate sources - the people who were actually there and know what happened - are systematically considered inferior. What they say in the now-abundant public record typically doesn't count. Wikipedia seems stuck in an antiquated worldview where things like traditionally-published books with second- or third-hand reports of what happened, and which are frequently incomplete or wholly inaccurate, are nonetheless considered more authoritative than primary sources you can find with a ten-second Google search.
That approach leads to situations like this, where you have a programming language used in production, with a 10k-star github, and where you can go watch hours of YouTube interviews with the creator, as well as users discussing their own experiences with the language and what they've done with it. Yet despite all that, Wikipedia deletes its page because it is "not notable" :(
Meanwhile, go lookup any programming language from 50+ years ago - even those that were purely theoretical, and with which literally no one ever shipped a single piece of software - and I guarantee you there is a Wikipedia entry. It probably even has examples of the syntax of the language included in the page.
Plankalkül? Yep. Böhm's Language? No problem.
Again, the reason for this is obvious: before the widespread use of the internet, you had to formally publish something if you wanted to talk about a programming language. So no matter how obscure, there will always be a few printed sources discussing the language. By Wikipedia's rules, that makes it easy to find "sources" to defend a language's "notability".
That's simple not how the programming world works today.
@MaruluExploit@SadlyItsBradley Looks super promising in Retro Gaming Corps' video! I hope Retroid and the likes start shipping these devices like that, and hopefully try to get input parity with steam deck / steam controller
@supercharge71@Tyler_McV Games get made with these dumb post processing solutions in mind. For example some games will use checkerboard rendering to abuse TAA artifacts to achieve easy transparancy. Those games look like ass without TAA. If DLSS5 is available, devs will use it as another shortcut
@its_mirrors The thing about static types and whether or not to use 'self' seems like things that shouldn't be semantically different. Have you benchmarked this?