I’ve tinkered with pixel art now and then but I’m far from skilled. This may sound silly, but the idea of having two windows one zoomed and one unzoomed has never occurred to me, and I feel like it's going to change a lot for me.
The original MacPaint had "Fatbits" which allowed zooming in to edit specific pixels: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/archive/staff... I think it's the first time that was implemented in a graphics program. It was really the killer feature of MacPaint. (Which itself was the killer app for the original Mac in 1984.)
Seems like this may have been common in vintage image editing software. Arbitrary zoom doesn't seem to have been available in most raster graphics editing software until some point in the mid-to-late 90s. I've seen a couple programs that compensated for this with a dual-view arrangement where you could move the zoomed-in view around by dragging a box around inside the zoomed-out view.
IIRC, the classic Deluxe Paint II (mostly for Amiga, but also PC) had this as a standard feature when zooming. Classic graphics work was almost all pixel editing.
It is first-class support, as far as I know everything is accessible from C#. I developed YKnytt, an open source game, fully in C# and never had the issue of something not working in C# as it did in GDScript.
GDScript is very comfortable for doing simple game and UI logic, but it can be problematic that there's standard/easy way to import other people's code libraries besides copy-paste jobs.
When trying to do some sort of complex logic or when I really could use an external library for something, I simply go to C# to scratch that itch, and it's been working out pretty well for me. You can even have the two languages inter-operate to a degree within a project.
I felt like Alice down the rabbit hole after getting sucked into reading about TempleOS. Quite an unexpected side-effect of reading an article on neural networks!
I think it must be getting slammed; I was able to get a couple of descriptions out of it, but that was balanced by probably 2 times as many instances of the above error.
Wouldn't it be far more constructive to discuss and debate the author's views instead of making a passive aggressive attempt to incite an attack on them, simply because you don't agree with them? This sort of attitude can be dangerous.
It is great to see how many people are more interested in having a discussion than limiting themselves to emotional outbursts. My post was indeed meant to provoke a frank conversation about an important issue.
