6 ms·

Incredible. I have not seen anything like this since Macromedia Flash came out about 12 years ago... Sigh There is good reason why we don't use flash today tho

Incredible. I have not seen anything like this since Macromedia Flash came out about 12 years ago... Sigh There is good reason why we don't use flash today though right? It is resource intensive (looks at task manager and realizes that browser with hair page open is eating up 12% of i7 processor).

diminish 13y ago
it is cool, but, browsers must give reachable options to cpu consuming operations with canvas and other js animations.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Like gpu acceleration? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15363798/which-mobile-browsers-has-gpu-acceleration-for-html5-canvas http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15363798/which-mobile-bro... iOS5 with Nitro Javascript Chrome for Android on Android4+ (default browser) Windows Phone 7 with IE9 I don't see Blackberry providing any support but...
kozhevnikov 13y ago
No need for sarcastic sighs, codepen and alike are simply this generation's demoscene. Nobody is thinking of making a restaurant site with hair animations.
- redacted 13y ago
  NEVER underestimate the perversity of developers of restaurant sites.
- inoop 13y ago
  Please do not associate us with this kind of crap. Sincerely, The Demoscene
  - skrebbel 13y ago
    But it's in the browser!!!
- nollidge 13y ago
  If anyone's thinking of doing hair animations for non-legitimate reasons, it's restaurant website developers
vidarh 13y ago
Yes, there is a good reason. For starters I can't cut and paste flash / actionscript code into a file and fire up a browser and start hacking on it without any extra tools.
- WayneDB 13y ago
  The goodness of that reason is highly debatable.
jawngee 13y ago
I needed to put on sun screen to protect myself from the glare of your snarkiness. You didn't see anything like this 12 years ago, because it simply wasn't possible with just HTML. You had to use a closed source, expensive tool to do it. And 12 years ago, when it was being done by people like Joshua Davies, Manny Tan, that guy behind assembler.org, they were doing something very, very important: they were bringing computer art to every living room, they were exploring generative algorithmic art and they were advancing the idea of what could be done with tech of that time. It was pretty important shit. This code is useful in a lot of practical ways - games coming to mind almost instantly. But not everything has to be practical. Something can just be beautiful. I find this to be beautiful and fun. HN needs less posts like yours. It used to not have them. I am glad to see some positive in other comments in this thread, but your comment in particular is relatively useless. Particularly after you admit to using Windows in 2013. That's like someone driving a Ford telling me what a waste of metal a work of art like a Lamborghini is.
- antocv 13y ago
  How do you know that he uses Windows? I found his comment not very snarky, but quite interesting, indeed, one of the main arguments against Flash, and here we are with the same drawback with this amazing new technology.
  - quarterto 13y ago
    > looks at task manager
    - bliker 13y ago
      there is one in chrome too
    - antocv 13y ago
      I see, my radar didnt go pick up on that. Well, not to nitpick but Linux also has a task manager, and in many desktops it is also called a task manager, I believe in KDE that was the kase.
    - 13y ago
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
Macromedia started selling Flash 16 years a go, in December 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#History
Goladus 13y ago
The main reason I don't and never used flash is because the entire stack is mostly proprietary. Developing for it required tools from Macromedia/Adobe (At least, I never found a decent open variant). Flash applications also tended to have poorly integrated user interfaces. All of the standard web-browing features (back, forward, copy link location, save image, open link in new window, etc.) had to be replicated by the developer of each individual application. So most of them functioned poorly. And CPU utilization was not the metric people used against flash with regard to performance complaints. The metric was time spent waiting for the goddamn site to load. People complained about flash's performance in two main scenarios. The first, were sites that were supposed to be useful that tried to be overly creative with intro movies and fancy dynamic menus that users had to wait for. The second scenario was pages with flash-based ads, where once again, content on the page would take longer to display because the browser was busy downloading and running banner ads that were 100x the size and complexity of the target content.
beatgammit 13y ago
You're lucky! On my old Core 2 Duo, the animation takes 40-60% CPU (nothing when idle). But this is a lot better than flash which frequently takes 100% of a core for even relatively trivial redering (videos and such), and stays high even when idle. My GPU sucks, so I think mostly everything is software rendered anyway. Also, Flash is a pain to get working on *BSD and is no longer supported on Linux, which is reason enough to move to JS. HTML5 isn't necessarily about lower CPU, it's about openness, cross-platform compatibility and integrating with other browser elements, all of which Flash completely fails at. Also it's a pretty neat animation and works without plugins, provided your system OpenGL version is recent enough.
- mistercow 13y ago
  >provided your system OpenGL version is recent enough. I haven't tested it, but I don't think this requires OpenGL at all. It appears to be purely canvas 2D, which is not WebGL.
- UnFleshedOne 13y ago
  12% on i7 means one core out of 8 is fully booked. Windows never has more than 100% CPU, unlike mac and linux, which have 100% for each core and then tell you "Xcode uses 390% of CPU". :)
joshdance 13y ago
I think it is useful to learn from. And hey it is fun. :)
look_lookatme 13y ago
This guy's comment history is abysmal. Can someone just ban him?

diminish 13y ago

it is cool, but, browsers must give reachable options to cpu consuming operations with canvas and other js animations.

wavefunction 13y ago
Like gpu acceleration? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15363798/which-mobile-browsers-has-gpu-acceleration-for-html5-canvas http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15363798/which-mobile-bro... iOS5 with Nitro Javascript Chrome for Android on Android4+ (default browser) Windows Phone 7 with IE9 I don't see Blackberry providing any support but...

kozhevnikov 13y ago

No need for sarcastic sighs, codepen and alike are simply this generation's demoscene. Nobody is thinking of making a restaurant site with hair animations.

redacted 13y ago
NEVER underestimate the perversity of developers of restaurant sites.
inoop 13y ago
Please do not associate us with this kind of crap. Sincerely, The Demoscene
- skrebbel 13y ago
  But it's in the browser!!!
nollidge 13y ago
If anyone's thinking of doing hair animations for non-legitimate reasons, it's restaurant website developers

vidarh 13y ago

Yes, there is a good reason. For starters I can't cut and paste flash / actionscript code into a file and fire up a browser and start hacking on it without any extra tools.

WayneDB 13y ago
The goodness of that reason is highly debatable.

jawngee 13y ago

I needed to put on sun screen to protect myself from the glare of your snarkiness. You didn't see anything like this 12 years ago, because it simply wasn't possible with just HTML. You had to use a closed source, expensive tool to do it. And 12 years ago, when it was being done by people like Joshua Davies, Manny Tan, that guy behind assembler.org, they were doing something very, very important: they were bringing computer art to every living room, they were exploring generative algorithmic art and they were advancing the idea of what could be done with tech of that time. It was pretty important shit. This code is useful in a lot of practical ways - games coming to mind almost instantly. But not everything has to be practical. Something can just be beautiful. I find this to be beautiful and fun. HN needs less posts like yours. It used to not have them. I am glad to see some positive in other comments in this thread, but your comment in particular is relatively useless. Particularly after you admit to using Windows in 2013. That's like someone driving a Ford telling me what a waste of metal a work of art like a Lamborghini is.

antocv 13y ago
How do you know that he uses Windows? I found his comment not very snarky, but quite interesting, indeed, one of the main arguments against Flash, and here we are with the same drawback with this amazing new technology.
- quarterto 13y ago
  > looks at task manager
  - bliker 13y ago
    there is one in chrome too
  - antocv 13y ago
    I see, my radar didnt go pick up on that. Well, not to nitpick but Linux also has a task manager, and in many desktops it is also called a task manager, I believe in KDE that was the kase.
  - 13y ago

Samuel_Michon 13y ago

Macromedia started selling Flash 16 years a go, in December 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#History

Goladus 13y ago

The main reason I don't and never used flash is because the entire stack is mostly proprietary. Developing for it required tools from Macromedia/Adobe (At least, I never found a decent open variant). Flash applications also tended to have poorly integrated user interfaces. All of the standard web-browing features (back, forward, copy link location, save image, open link in new window, etc.) had to be replicated by the developer of each individual application. So most of them functioned poorly. And CPU utilization was not the metric people used against flash with regard to performance complaints. The metric was time spent waiting for the goddamn site to load. People complained about flash's performance in two main scenarios. The first, were sites that were supposed to be useful that tried to be overly creative with intro movies and fancy dynamic menus that users had to wait for. The second scenario was pages with flash-based ads, where once again, content on the page would take longer to display because the browser was busy downloading and running banner ads that were 100x the size and complexity of the target content.

beatgammit 13y ago

You're lucky! On my old Core 2 Duo, the animation takes 40-60% CPU (nothing when idle). But this is a lot better than flash which frequently takes 100% of a core for even relatively trivial redering (videos and such), and stays high even when idle. My GPU sucks, so I think mostly everything is software rendered anyway. Also, Flash is a pain to get working on *BSD and is no longer supported on Linux, which is reason enough to move to JS. HTML5 isn't necessarily about lower CPU, it's about openness, cross-platform compatibility and integrating with other browser elements, all of which Flash completely fails at. Also it's a pretty neat animation and works without plugins, provided your system OpenGL version is recent enough.

mistercow 13y ago
>provided your system OpenGL version is recent enough. I haven't tested it, but I don't think this requires OpenGL at all. It appears to be purely canvas 2D, which is not WebGL.
UnFleshedOne 13y ago
12% on i7 means one core out of 8 is fully booked. Windows never has more than 100% CPU, unlike mac and linux, which have 100% for each core and then tell you "Xcode uses 390% of CPU". :)

joshdance 13y ago

I think it is useful to learn from. And hey it is fun. :)

look_lookatme 13y ago

This guy's comment history is abysmal. Can someone just ban him?