Sadly front end, like “High Level” is a very relative term. For example, in compiler design, the bit that parses code is called the “front end” since the “back end” is what emits machine code. I think that’s what they mean here, the “front end” that understands D3D8 code has been added, presumably there is also a “back end” that converts the parsed/analyzed D3D8 code into valid opcodes for consumption by GPU/CPUs.

In the other direction, a UI/UX is sometimes called a “back end” when it is part of a more complex embedded project where physical controls are the “front end”.

Answering both: dial image for reference to what the “modes” are, and my dial is gross. Plus that was the best image I could find describing it, but had trouble getting a clean download. Google images can suck that way. If you get me a clean link, I’d update the post.

Beej’s guides are absolute classics. The networking guide is also amazing. Definitely worth the read.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking too. The combination of a c API and a JVM API (and maybe .NET if you're in Microsoft land?) Hits most FFI available in languages I've seen. I can't think of any language I've used that couldn't Interop with either a c library (.a or .so) or JVM library (.jar). However I've never used any .NET system seriously, so I don't know about them.

FWIW I regularly remake the same API based game whenever I start a new job working in a new environment to test that my environment is "up to snuff" with my development methodologies. I've never needed to port more than API.a and API.jar to play around in any language. I've ported that system to at least 100 languages over the years, and while some have more friction than others, and often the c/JVM paradigm doesn't line up well with the target language, it is always effective.

FYI: I’m starting with the outline of the left half of the leaf. I have to go to work soon, but hopefully there’ll be enough outline for the rest to be filled in (just mirror it one pixel over).

If you read the linked document, it outlines how reverse engineering may fall under a certain level of fair use, e.g. for reasearch and/or backup/archival purposes.

It really isn’t as clear-cut as it seems at first.

Great read. Only constructive criticism I have is a pet peeve of mine that is especially prevalent in type theory articles. In particular it may be worth mentioning the more formal names of some of the types discussed. Trying to map Haskell’s types to other languages can be very tricky and can hinder understanding. Mentioning more googleable names like unit, top, bottom, can be helpful in disambiguation which characteristics are intrinsic to the Haskell type, versus which are properties of the type system in general.

More specifically look up the term “ablaut reduplication”. There’s lots of great articles and honestly some pretty good YouTube videos on the subject. I’m honestly surprised how great the YouTube linguistics scene is, from Tom Scott’s language files to rob words and name explain (plus nativlang). Hours of infotainment on linguistics for those interested!