6 ms·

Yeah, 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

Yeah, 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 ago
The desktop equivalent, CU-SeeMe, was working in 1994.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
  Even 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 ago
  I 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 ago
      Of 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.
MrScruff 14y ago
That argument works for anything, as long as you can convince the browser vendors to implement support for it and provide it as an api. So I would argue that's much closer to the definition of cherry picking an example.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
  So I guess I can't talk about the DOM; many functions are just an API for it; and canvas is just an API for drawing accelerated by the CPU; so... Javascript is nothing and nothing can be blamed on it?
  - MrScruff 14y ago
    I'm just saying that the provision of video streaming as a web api is not a particularly technically interesting development. It's just a gradual beefing up of the browser as a thin client. And until support for the features are widespread, it's not really a commercially interesting development either. I would class many of the other things you mention as incremental improvements of the rendering engine as a universal runtime. It's great that it's happening but it's not technically that exciting to me to see reimplementations of 16 year old games since we've had the flash runtime in the interim anyway.
    - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
      Broken argument; flash is way too slow compared to the current version of Canvas; recently I made a full conversion of flash to canvas (was painful but) the performance is outstanding and the ability to interact natively and play nice with the DOM is invaluable.
      - MrScruff 14y ago
        The latest comparative performance of 2D drawing in one runtime vs another doesn't have anything to do with my argument.

kalleboo 14y ago

The desktop equivalent, CU-SeeMe, was working in 1994.

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
Even 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 ago
I 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 ago
    Of 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.

MrScruff 14y ago

That argument works for anything, as long as you can convince the browser vendors to implement support for it and provide it as an api. So I would argue that's much closer to the definition of cherry picking an example.

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
So I guess I can't talk about the DOM; many functions are just an API for it; and canvas is just an API for drawing accelerated by the CPU; so... Javascript is nothing and nothing can be blamed on it?
- MrScruff 14y ago
  I'm just saying that the provision of video streaming as a web api is not a particularly technically interesting development. It's just a gradual beefing up of the browser as a thin client. And until support for the features are widespread, it's not really a commercially interesting development either. I would class many of the other things you mention as incremental improvements of the rendering engine as a universal runtime. It's great that it's happening but it's not technically that exciting to me to see reimplementations of 16 year old games since we've had the flash runtime in the interim anyway.
  - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
    Broken argument; flash is way too slow compared to the current version of Canvas; recently I made a full conversion of flash to canvas (was painful but) the performance is outstanding and the ability to interact natively and play nice with the DOM is invaluable.
    - MrScruff 14y ago
      The latest comparative performance of 2D drawing in one runtime vs another doesn't have anything to do with my argument.