7 ms·
Not a commentary on this project per se, but I can't help but think when I see "X in javascript" voted up that the implicit frame is: "isn't it impressive what
by overgard 14y ago
Not a commentary on this project per se, but I can't help but think when I see "X in javascript" voted up that the implicit frame is: "isn't it impressive what you can do in javascript now?"
But if you flip that statement on its head, the equivalent is "The web has finally caught up with what we could do on a 1997 desktop!"
- minimaxir 14y agoThe next logical step is Diablo in CSS3.
- joeblau 14y agoThat made me giggle. I'm sure someone is working on it.
- mmahemoff 14y agoThis is done in canvas, but a lot of games are done in CSS3 - using 3D transforms and CSS animation, it's very feasible. Of course, it's much harder to do a game in pure CSS, like this crazy thing http://jsdo.it/GeckoTang/4rXg http://jsdo.it/GeckoTang/4rXg
- scarecrowbob 14y agoTo keep on rolling and flip the statement again, it seems closer to "look, I can build Tetris on my wristwatch": in order to make your statement, you have to ignore the state of a web browser running on a 1997 vintage desktop.
- sebkomianos 14y agoAnd the "purpose" that the "web" was serving back then.
- cliffbean 14y agoThe implicit frame of the implicit frame might be "so let's move everything into the browser". Look at it from the perspective of someone who just wants to use a computer for something a computer could do in 1997. Doing it in a browser today would still sometimes be a downgrade from doing it in a (well written) native application in 1997. I am eager to seeing how much of a difference asm.js can make.
- daleharvey 14y agoThe me in 1997 would be pretty happy to know that the game would be playable by virtually every computer user in the world by clicking a link.
- scarecrowbob 14y agoI totally agree that doing something ins browser today would be worse than the 1997 era native app equivalent.... ... but to agree with a sibling comment: wow-- you can just download the code in, like 10 min? And I can read/modify it it because it doesn't even have to be compiled to run? These were both two very big limitations on my user experience in 1997... I'm not saying that we should move back to having everything run on a mainframe, but I suppose that in response to the "so what" I was responding to I offer "wow, man: there is something way different going on in a port of a technology than there is in the original." /postmodernity
- pjmlp 14y agoI was doing that in Smalltalk in 1995.
- jere 14y agoAgreed. The worst part is that, as far as I can tell, this isn't actually Diablo. So we can't even claim a foothold on 1997.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoDead Space 3 wasn't created by 1 person in their spare time. But by all means, don't let that temper your cynicism.
- overgard 14y agoI meant it as a commentary on celebrating javascript in general, not on this person's project. It's not cynicism I feel, it's dissatisfaction. I /want/ to use the web for powerful things, but the limitations of javascript make many of those things impractical. Hence my ambivalence towards "x in javascript"
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- xaa 14y agoJava applets, Native Client, and ActiveX all (imperfectly) address this problem. We have long had trouble agreeing on a standard for web-based native code. But that doesn't mean that it's a senseless request. The exalted status of Javascript is merely a convenient local optimum.
- marcloney 14y agoWhat exactly makes it impractical to do powerful things? You may have disdain for certain language features but I don't understand how that makes it impractical. Most of the tech demo's we're seeing coming out of the JS crowd are from people who have only just started using the WebGL API (which is still experimental). I'm extremely excited to see the things that experienced OpenGL developers will be able to do as the API becomes more mainstream.
- nightski 14y agoNeither was this. Let's face it a clone is much different from creating a game from scratch. Not only that, but Dead Space 3 would be a far more complicated game to create than Diablo, even starting from scratch.
- cryowaffle 14y agoWell that IS pretty neat that a browser can do what a 1997 desktop can do. Browsers are much more portable than a 1997 desktop.
- georgemcbay 14y agoIn theory they are but most "Look what we can do with JavaScript now!" posts are quickly followed by "only works correctly in Chrome Canary" or "only works correctly in latest Firefox nightly".
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoThis works pretty nice in the most used browser in the world (Chrome last release), that is a win in my book.
- georgemcbay 14y agoAnd the original worked pretty nicely in the most used operating system in the world (Windows), when it was released. But pointing this out just proves my original point that the openness of web standards isn't all that it is cracked up to be.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoThe code is pretty much open (even commented and well organized) and It can fairly easy be changed to SVG to support pretty much every modern browser. Open enough for me.
- Ziomislaw 14y agoI do believe that Windoze stopped being most used operating system in the world (hint: android)
- darkchasma 14y agoIf this isn't a comment about the project, then maybe you could step off the soapbox.
- MichaelGG 14y agoI've had this sentiment from 1996 on. I worked for a company creating Internet materials for use in classrooms (Internet-on-CD, books, etc.). I remember seeing a "frog dissection" thing on a website and everyone seemed to impressed with it. Why? You'd click a gif, it'd run a CGI and deliver a new image. Just what you could do with actual clients, just slower, more limited, and lower resolution. There's something neat about "X in Y" for some technical novelty (like emulators) but I don't get the excitement in general.
- unwind 14y agoThis has been stated a million times, and I'm not even a "web developer" like the majority here seems to be, by my take is this: not needing a client is the win. There's a huge amount of value, as perceived by "users" of the services/applications/games, in not having to care about and install a specific client for each service/application/game. That's why it's noteworthy when something that used to require a heavliy specialized client, such as a game, no longer does for delivering the same experience.
- dwallin33 14y agoOr that javascript has caught up with what you could do in flash about 10 years ago. ;)
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoYeah, only now with javascript we can transmit HD videos in realtime via webcam with Chrome or Firefox, just like in 1997... no wait... the cherry picking of an example went wrong on that one. But maybe we can still devalue Javascript by saying HD videos is a separate thing and that speed connections is more important than Javascript in that example?
- kalleboo 14y agoThe desktop equivalent, CU-SeeMe, was working in 1994.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoEven older, perfect for devaluing JS! The similarity is truly shocking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CUcollaboration.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CUcollaboration.gif http://www.teknoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/gmail-google-hangout-310712.png http://www.teknoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/gmail-go...
- coldtea 14y agoI tried it circa 1998. I wouldn't call it "working" even then. Not to mention it needed installation (Javascript just needs people to go to a specific page), and the speed, lag and buffering was horrible at the time.
- thevdude 14y ago> speed, lag and buffering was horrible at the time That has nothing to do with the software and everything to do with the network, no?
- coldtea 14y agoOf course not. Even on the same network, different conference apps have different characteristics. It depends on the compression and coded they use, how they handle changes in network performance, etc. Plus the GUI and UX of that app was simply horrible.