The bummer is that the transmission is only unidirectional, but a unicycle needs bidirectional control, with very little backlash. Every economical planetary gear hub involves over-running pawls, alas.
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. QRhi docs[1] say "The Qt Rendering Hardware Interface is an abstraction for hardware accelerated graphics APIs, such as, OpenGL, OpenGL ES, Direct3D, Metal, and Vulkan." And PySide6 includes a (python) wrapper for QRhi[2]. Meanwhile, pygfx builds on wgpu-py[3] which builds on wgpu[4] which is a "is a cross-platform, safe, pure-rust graphics API. It runs natively on Vulkan, Metal, D3D12, and OpenGL".
So, from the standpoint of someone using PySide6, QRhi and pygfx seem to be alternative paths to doing GPU-enabled rendering, on the exact same range of GPU APIs.
Thus my question: How do they compare? How should I make an informed comparison between them?
Sourceforge still works, and is (now) reliable. The awful DevShare malware stuff that Sourceforge started (under new ownership) in 2012 was stopped (under different new ownership) in 2016.
Fwiw the github page for that proposal isn't linking to what seems to be the most recent discussion *. I thought type-annotations-as-comments was a no-brainer, but it seems messy. The Sept 2023 discussion shows that it is complicated by the current variety of annotation schemes (TypeScript is not the only one), and the parsing subtleties, which gave rise to unresolved questions about what is the basic motivation. bummer.
What a sweet film. Thank you for the link. This whole time when I heard about work on the Voyager mission I assumed there was a larger team, with fewer single points of failure.
I first learned about "leaky abstractions" from John Cook, who describes* IEEE 754 floats as a leaky abstraction of the reals. I think this is a good way of appreciating floating point for the large group of people who's experience is somewhere between numerical computing experts (who look at every arithmetic operation through the lens of numerical precision) and total beginners (who haven't yet recognized that there can't be a one-to-one correspondence between a point on the real number line and a "float").
He actually just posted a video in which he admits he lost the plot, and forgot that the real goal is something that is fun. I hope he finds his way back to that!
I guess "floats are weird" is a catchier title than "numerical computing is an acquired skill based in part on understanding the various consequences of value representation density being inversely proportional to the absolute value".
The author is sharing second thoughts about using the MIT license and yes, bad actors are going to break bad, but the point of licensing is to control re-use within the (enforceable) legal framework of copyright. Reciprocal licenses (thanks Lawrence Rosen[1] for that term less charged than copyleft or viral) cede less control, and provide more footholds for enforcement. Remember that GPL has (sometimes) worked as intended in adversarial commericial settings [2,3].
I'm looking forward to learning more about which one makes it easier to see how various possible changes in the data are mapped to legible changes in the visualization.
Also tracks my experience as a unicyclist. When you keep poking at humanity with the same but unusual prompt, you glimpse how similar people can be. To the quip about losing a wheel, my sadly habituated response is "that was the training wheel!", and then they chuckle, because it's new to them ...