Sure, let me just (s0 ^= b[i + 0]), (s1 ^= b[i + 1]), (s2 ^= b[i + 2]), (s3 ^= b[i + 3]);
          ({ s0, s1, s2, s3 } = encrypt(xk, s0, s1, s2, s3));
          (o[i++] = s0), (o[i++] = s1), (o[i++] = s2), (o[i++] = s3); for you. 

 This should have been written in LaTeX and then transpiled to JavaScript  

 I was wondering what it looks like in Latex  

 no need to wonder no more https://i.nostr.build/dq0fYugcm1notAbR.jpg  

 I got ahead of myself n forgot to add the code https://i.nostr.build/di3HlEBrQY34ZPEY.jpg  

 ^t-y 

 i'd settle with C*ing some freaks in latex (0_O)    .girls just wanna have fun/dyor 

  https://i.nostr.build/i6PILrr8kRq5Qm81.jpg  

 Thats sick bro 

 ya, i'm calling in sick/iykyk       .blame the bowl 

 That really makes a case for functional languages and commenting your code, doesn't it?

SimpleX actually has some of its cryptography written in Haskell IIRC, and OCaml is another good option that's a little more pragmatic in its design.