miniblog.

It's incredibly hard to explain adversarial problems to users. I see gamers sincerely asking "why doesn't the publisher just fix the cheater problem?". This is exacerbated by the fact that sharing too many details of anticheat can make the problem worse.

`init` feels like an unhelpful name in OO. It doesn't give you an initial value, it initialises the instance that has already been created. Developers are often surprised that init doesn't return the instance, because they have a strong association with `new Foo()`. Perhaps `finish` would have been a less confusing name?

I'm having fun writing a simple type checker, but I'm learning firsthand why syntax-directed checking doesn't work. It prevents inference. My checker catches real bugs, but it can't handle cases like this: [1, 2].map(fun(x) { x + 1; }) I think I need bidirectional checking.