13 ms·
Sounds to me like you saw some jquery spaghetti 10 years ago, threw up your hands, and said "Never Again!" Seriously, its a lot better now, and if there's a th
by headcanon 10y ago
Sounds to me like you saw some jquery spaghetti 10 years ago, threw up your hands, and said "Never Again!"
Seriously, its a lot better now, and if there's a thing you don't like about it (like static typing maybe?) there's something for you out there (typescript, clojurescript, elm, etc...)
- saosebastiao 10y agoI use React, and I use it with Typescript. So far it is the only thing I've found to be remotely tolerable for the web. There are better languages out there (I'd love to use scalajs), but even the best of them have noticable additional runtime overhead over the already ridiculous runtime overhead of javascript, and some of them go far beyond noticable. Maybe someday this will be better with WASM, but it's not there today. Javascript runtimes work fine (not perfect, but passable) for page-based and widget-based UIs. There's no way I would touch it for something as computation-intensive as real-time 3D modeling.
- headcanon 10y agoI'd imagine that this, like all the other 3D JS libraries, use WebGL under the hood, which is quite fast, hardware accelerated, and just exposes a JS API. You wouldn't actually write your shader in JS, unless it happened to be asm.js which allows the browser to get close to C level performance.