> its performance requirements were too ahead-of-their-time for 2009 hardware For 2009 hardware running javascript in a browser, you mean? I was running much

> its performance requirements were too ahead-of-their-time for 2009 hardware For 2009 hardware running javascript in a browser, you mean? I was running much fancier native stuff much faster (including 3d games) on low-to-mid tier 2009 hardware. > So in many ways, it accomplished exactly what to set out to do. I think it definitely accomplished its goals technically, but it certainly failed on adoption. I personally never got into it. I tried it quite early and didn't like it. It was clunky and confusing and didn't seem very useful to me at the time. I wonder if it were re-created with slicker UX (and good performance), would I like it...