3 ms·

Cool technology to pursue but considering how Flash content's CPU requirements are often a problem on C-based interpreters, this doesn't seem like a practical t

by timf 17y ago

Cool technology to pursue but considering how Flash content's CPU requirements are often a problem on C-based interpreters, this doesn't seem like a practical thing.

jacquesm 17y ago
When you see a pig dance it is impolite to comment on the quality of the dance, but you can express amazement at that it dances at all ;) Let's give them a bit and see how far they take it. With a bit of luck they get some help from a nifty jit for js and who knows what might happen. The evil .swf might turn in to a standard component after all, if only via a somewhat roundabout way. I really wonder how they're going to do audio though, and capture devices and such are probably out (I can see a route to do video via the canvas, it's going to be bloody slow though unless js gets sped up a lot compared to where it is today).
- uggedal 17y ago
  If the new HTML5 <device> element gets implemented they could use that for capture devices: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/commands.html#devices http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/...
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Yes, I can't wait. I've been waiting for that literally for years. Many years long we used a crappy old little javascript that I wrote long ago, it basically loads jpegs under water in to an off screen buffer and then flips them over the previous one when they're. Using some trickery I could get pretty good framerates if the connection is good but the bandwidth cost is just terrible. Now we've switched to (yuck) flash and it works ok I guess but something more standardized would be much appreciated.
s3graham 17y ago
It's translating to SVG, so there's "just" the script translation overhead, not rendering overhead. I think it's quite practical if maybe not especially useful given Flash penetration. I wrote a Flash player for the PS2 ~9 years ago now that was fast enough. I'd say that current PCs + jitted JS are faster than that platform.
- timf 17y ago
  > there's "just" the script translation overhead, not rendering overhead Ah that makes a lot more sense, thanks for pointing that out.

by timf 17y ago

Cool technology to pursue but considering how Flash content's CPU requirements are often a problem on C-based interpreters, this doesn't seem like a practical thing.

jacquesm 17y ago

When you see a pig dance it is impolite to comment on the quality of the dance, but you can express amazement at that it dances at all ;) Let's give them a bit and see how far they take it. With a bit of luck they get some help from a nifty jit for js and who knows what might happen. The evil .swf might turn in to a standard component after all, if only via a somewhat roundabout way. I really wonder how they're going to do audio though, and capture devices and such are probably out (I can see a route to do video via the canvas, it's going to be bloody slow though unless js gets sped up a lot compared to where it is today).

uggedal 17y ago
If the new HTML5 <device> element gets implemented they could use that for capture devices: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/commands.html#devices http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/...
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Yes, I can't wait. I've been waiting for that literally for years. Many years long we used a crappy old little javascript that I wrote long ago, it basically loads jpegs under water in to an off screen buffer and then flips them over the previous one when they're. Using some trickery I could get pretty good framerates if the connection is good but the bandwidth cost is just terrible. Now we've switched to (yuck) flash and it works ok I guess but something more standardized would be much appreciated.

s3graham 17y ago

It's translating to SVG, so there's "just" the script translation overhead, not rendering overhead. I think it's quite practical if maybe not especially useful given Flash penetration. I wrote a Flash player for the PS2 ~9 years ago now that was fast enough. I'd say that current PCs + jitted JS are faster than that platform.

timf 17y ago
> there's "just" the script translation overhead, not rendering overhead Ah that makes a lot more sense, thanks for pointing that out.