I think a lot about how Battlefield 1's menus were written in JavaScript so they could have their web developers build a videogame UI

The actually used React to make a game UI. Why.

The PS4 doesn't allow just-in-time compilation so you don't get the performance a modern javascript engine normally guarantees so on what planet is this a good idea

@wallhackio The JavaScript Planet, a dystopian world where JavaScript is the only programming language ever invented

@vaporeon_ I love JavaScript, so delete this please

@vaporeon_ I love JavaScript, so delete this please

@wallhackio How do I deallocate memory / destroy an object in JavaScript? So that I can delete this?

@vaporeon_ npm install memory-management

@wallhackio Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

And in standard JavaScript? No NPM?

@vaporeon_ it was a joke lmao

@wallhackio But can you do any memory management in JavaScript?

@vaporeon_ @wallhackio no

@aescling @vaporeon_

const deleteThis = () => {
    const temp = { _this: this };
    delete temp._this;
};

@aescling @vaporeon_ this will NOT do what it's being promised to do, this is a joke

@wallhackio @aescling What will it do?

@vaporeon_ @aescling it will create an object with a single property named _this that has the value of whatever this was where the arrow function was declared

and then it will delete that property from the object

@wallhackio @aescling So creating the object initializes _this with a copy of the value of this, and only that copy gets deleted?

@vaporeon_ @aescling yessir

@wallhackio @vaporeon_ not a copy but a refurence

@wallhackio @vaporeon_ what gets deleted is the refurence

@aescling @wallhackio Is a reference the JavaScript version of a pointer?

@vaporeon_ @wallhackio yeah basically

@vaporeon_ @wallhackio

const o = { k: 1 };

function changeObj(o) {
  o.k = 2
};

changeObj(o);
console.log(o);  // { k: 2 }

@aescling @wallhackio LOL, is that because the pointer is a constant, but the contents of the object are not? In C terms, what happens here is this, right?

changeObj(struct object *o) {
  o->k = 2;
}
main() {
  const struct object *o = new_object(1);
  changeObj(o);
  printf("k: %d\n", o->k);
}

@vaporeon_ @wallhackio yup

@aescling @wallhackio There are two types of languages: those that have explicit pointers and those that hide the concept of a pointer from the user and therefore become very confusing

@vaporeon_ @aescling C++ actually implicitly converts objects to references if the function is declared to take reference arguments

#include <iostream>

class T {};

void use_T(T& t) { std::cout << "I used a T!\n"; }

int main() {
    T t;
    use_T(t);
}

@vaporeon_ @aescling this is why they were introduced into the language actually

@vaporeon_ @aescling so that operator overloading would Work

@wallhackio @aescling Why does operator overloading need references?

@vaporeon_ @aescling using operators in C++ is sugar for a function call, where whatever is given to the operands is provided to the function that represents the operation

of course Bjarne could have decided that pointers of these operands would be provided to the function representing the operations, but that would be too simple. so instead, he added references, and also ruined the language forever