5 ms·

Photoshop is a notorious pig. I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development. See the latest JSConf.eu talk on this topic: http://

Photoshop is a notorious pig. I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development. See the latest JSConf.eu talk on this topic: http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photoshop.html http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh... (slides: https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-2012-because-f https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201... -- but you probably had to be there). I sense trollery here: "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any programming language." Who said otherwise? The bogus claims against JS (going back to the "RIA" era, where IBM and Macromedia/Adobe made such arguments) already fell. The issue is not what languages can program the GPU somehow -- because only JS is supported directly in browsers, the issue is whether JS cannot. Clearly (WebGL, River Trail, even GLSL embedded in an unknown-type script and downloaded via JS) that's false. But it seemed true once, which led to the false anti-JS prophecy. At the risk of feeding a troll, I suggest you use the down arrow on the "goto L0" slide to see how JS enables compiling control effects without goto. And play BananaBread, for crying out loud (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/bananabread https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/bananabread). You simply do not know what you are talking about by your next-to-last paragraph. Yes, typed arrays were ad-hoc (so are many incremental web standards that win). Binary data (arrays and structs, which compose) as proposed in ES6 are not.

kaffiene 14y ago
I can't believe that you point out the Bananabread demo as proof that JS is doing WebGL in a performant fashion. Issues: * I have a PC that is set up for playing bleeding edge AAA games and Bananabread stutters on it. * The technology on display is worse than that on offer in Quake 2 (1997 era). * A Java applet (Jake) was playing the full Quake 2 game release EIGHT YEARS AGO which underscores how behind JS really is in the performance stakes. And Jake was hardly cutting edge for Java, at that point, either. Look, JS is fine for what it was intended for, but an actual bytecode VM for the web makes way more sense than JS being the only way to do it. Bytecode is much more amenable to optimisation and we have several existing examples we could use RIGHT NOW rather than do a poor job reinventing the wheel with a poor substitute. As a scripting language, JS is great. As a 'bytecode for the web', JS is utterly and completely unsuited and not intended for that task. The SANE thing to do is design a Bytecode standard, optimise the hell out of that, and allow people to use whatever tools they want to target it rather than insist that people must use JS or something else hobbled by JS's limitations as a compile target.
kombine 14y ago
> Photoshop is a notorious pig. I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development. The point was not about using Photoshop for design on the web, but rather its complexity. IDE's, CAD, engineering applications. Well, we don't even have to go that far. When Google Docs are going to process 500k row spreadsheets? I use Google Docs casually for quick and simple stuff, but for any serious work - probably not. > I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development I know many people(all of them are extremely bright) who use Linux on the desktop. I use Linux too(I am not implying I am a clever bloke here). Does this mean Linux is winning the OS war? Otherwise this is just argumentum ad populum. I'll look through the slides and get back to you. > I sense trollery here: "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any programming language." Who said otherwise? The bogus claims against JS (going back to the "RIA" era, where IBM and Macromedia/Adobe made such arguments) already fell. I apologize if you suspected a troll in me, but I did not imply comparison with Flash. Flash is just another competitor for you. What What I meant by "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any programming language." is if use C/C++ or any other language with access to the OS APIs I don't depend on the wits of browser vendors shipping a particular API for me. > And play BananaBread, for crying out loud (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/bananabread https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/bananabread). You simply do not know what you are talking about by your next-to-last paragraph. Believe me or not, but this is exactly the game I was referring to. The link was on the HN last week or so. To be more specific, my graphics card is AMD Radeon HD 6970, capable of running Crysis 2, and I was experiencing lags. As for the graphics, have you ever played Half-Life 2? It was released in 2004 and I can't see this game having any better graphics if not worse. Not to mention that Half-Life would have at least 3x higher FPS on my hardware. Could you please clarify on "You simply do not know what you are talking about"? > Yes, typed arrays were ad-hoc (so are many incremental web standards that win). Binary data (arrays and structs, which compose) as proposed in ES6 are not. Ok, it's good to see JS is going in the right direction. And thanks for taking time to responding to my message. I am actually excited about the work you do at Mozilla on Rust, and I'd like to see a language like that to be available on the client side. But I understand that it's not going to happen anytime soon.
kombine 14y ago
> See the latest JSConf.eu talk on this topic: http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh.. http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh.... (slides: https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201.. https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201.... -- but you probably had to be there). Just skimmed through the presentation, yes I had to be there because the slides don't tell too much. On the other hand there is no point in going to the conference where the speaker uses the work "fuck" on every other slide and concludes it with "YOU ARE ALL AWESOME". I'd prefer to attend more technical talks, without any "awesomeness". And I can't see how she made Photoshop irrelevant. I'd expect a more credible study on it.

kaffiene 14y ago

I can't believe that you point out the Bananabread demo as proof that JS is doing WebGL in a performant fashion. Issues: * I have a PC that is set up for playing bleeding edge AAA games and Bananabread stutters on it. * The technology on display is worse than that on offer in Quake 2 (1997 era). * A Java applet (Jake) was playing the full Quake 2 game release EIGHT YEARS AGO which underscores how behind JS really is in the performance stakes. And Jake was hardly cutting edge for Java, at that point, either. Look, JS is fine for what it was intended for, but an actual bytecode VM for the web makes way more sense than JS being the only way to do it. Bytecode is much more amenable to optimisation and we have several existing examples we could use RIGHT NOW rather than do a poor job reinventing the wheel with a poor substitute. As a scripting language, JS is great. As a 'bytecode for the web', JS is utterly and completely unsuited and not intended for that task. The SANE thing to do is design a Bytecode standard, optimise the hell out of that, and allow people to use whatever tools they want to target it rather than insist that people must use JS or something else hobbled by JS's limitations as a compile target.

kombine 14y ago

> Photoshop is a notorious pig. I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development. The point was not about using Photoshop for design on the web, but rather its complexity. IDE's, CAD, engineering applications. Well, we don't even have to go that far. When Google Docs are going to process 500k row spreadsheets? I use Google Docs casually for quick and simple stuff, but for any serious work - probably not. > I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development I know many people(all of them are extremely bright) who use Linux on the desktop. I use Linux too(I am not implying I am a clever bloke here). Does this mean Linux is winning the OS war? Otherwise this is just argumentum ad populum. I'll look through the slides and get back to you. > I sense trollery here: "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any programming language." Who said otherwise? The bogus claims against JS (going back to the "RIA" era, where IBM and Macromedia/Adobe made such arguments) already fell. I apologize if you suspected a troll in me, but I did not imply comparison with Flash. Flash is just another competitor for you. What What I meant by "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any programming language." is if use C/C++ or any other language with access to the OS APIs I don't depend on the wits of browser vendors shipping a particular API for me. > And play BananaBread, for crying out loud (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/bananabread https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/bananabread). You simply do not know what you are talking about by your next-to-last paragraph. Believe me or not, but this is exactly the game I was referring to. The link was on the HN last week or so. To be more specific, my graphics card is AMD Radeon HD 6970, capable of running Crysis 2, and I was experiencing lags. As for the graphics, have you ever played Half-Life 2? It was released in 2004 and I can't see this game having any better graphics if not worse. Not to mention that Half-Life would have at least 3x higher FPS on my hardware. Could you please clarify on "You simply do not know what you are talking about"? > Yes, typed arrays were ad-hoc (so are many incremental web standards that win). Binary data (arrays and structs, which compose) as proposed in ES6 are not. Ok, it's good to see JS is going in the right direction. And thanks for taking time to responding to my message. I am actually excited about the work you do at Mozilla on Rust, and I'd like to see a language like that to be available on the client side. But I understand that it's not going to happen anytime soon.

kombine 14y ago

> See the latest JSConf.eu talk on this topic: http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh.. http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh.... (slides: https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201.. https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201.... -- but you probably had to be there). Just skimmed through the presentation, yes I had to be there because the slides don't tell too much. On the other hand there is no point in going to the conference where the speaker uses the work "fuck" on every other slide and concludes it with "YOU ARE ALL AWESOME". I'd prefer to attend more technical talks, without any "awesomeness". And I can't see how she made Photoshop irrelevant. I'd expect a more credible study on it.