4 ms·

It depresses me to no end that even with impressive engineering advances like this, any modestly graphical intensive app on the browser redlines my dual-core In

by jnbiche 13y ago

It depresses me to no end that even with impressive engineering advances like this, any modestly graphical intensive app on the browser redlines my dual-core Intel laptop. Similar graphics effects in QT or other native technologies not only do not redline my laptop, they don't even raise the core temperature a single degree. I get enthusiastic about cool JS technologies just like most devs, but I feel like we're moving backwards.

purpleturtle 13y ago
I agree. The issue is the DOM. (For contrast, I've seen highly performant 3D worlds rendered in the browser via WebGL that don't bring my computer to its knees.) We've been layering on years of HTML/JS additions that aren't allowed to break backwards compatibility. (Google's Blink project is one example of an effort to try to undo some of this.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
hughes 13y ago
How can you not get excited about this? It's 2014 and we've finally gained the technology to animate one hundred and fifty moving dots on the screen! At the same time!
olegkikin 13y ago
It's because both jQuery and Velocity suck at animation. DOM is not designed for fast animation. Use the right tools, like WebGL, and your can have thousands of sprites animated simultaneously at 60fps.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  So to get decent graphics performance on the Web you now have to program in OpenGL? How many "web developers" can write OpenGL? On a related note, if you create your whole app in WebGL, you then lose all the benefits that HTML/JS/CSS brings, like simple user input. Finally, WebGL is not even available to the general public yet. As far as I know, it's still behind feature flags on almost all browsers. Have any major browsers removed the WebGL feature flag? If so, it's very recent. WebGL is very cool, but it's still depressing that web devs have to program in GL to get decent graphics performance.
  - jdc0589 13y ago
    The thing is, a web developer will almost never really need graphics intensive stuff that would see a huge performance boost from WebGL. It is definitely a problem, but it is just nowhere near as big of an issue as things like javascript + dom standards compliance.

by jnbiche 13y ago

purpleturtle 13y ago

I agree. The issue is the DOM. (For contrast, I've seen highly performant 3D worlds rendered in the browser via WebGL that don't bring my computer to its knees.) We've been layering on years of HTML/JS additions that aren't allowed to break backwards compatibility. (Google's Blink project is one example of an effort to try to undo some of this.)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

hughes 13y ago

How can you not get excited about this? It's 2014 and we've finally gained the technology to animate one hundred and fifty moving dots on the screen! At the same time!

olegkikin 13y ago

It's because both jQuery and Velocity suck at animation. DOM is not designed for fast animation. Use the right tools, like WebGL, and your can have thousands of sprites animated simultaneously at 60fps.

jnbiche 13y ago
So to get decent graphics performance on the Web you now have to program in OpenGL? How many "web developers" can write OpenGL? On a related note, if you create your whole app in WebGL, you then lose all the benefits that HTML/JS/CSS brings, like simple user input. Finally, WebGL is not even available to the general public yet. As far as I know, it's still behind feature flags on almost all browsers. Have any major browsers removed the WebGL feature flag? If so, it's very recent. WebGL is very cool, but it's still depressing that web devs have to program in GL to get decent graphics performance.
- jdc0589 13y ago
  The thing is, a web developer will almost never really need graphics intensive stuff that would see a huge performance boost from WebGL. It is definitely a problem, but it is just nowhere near as big of an issue as things like javascript + dom standards compliance.