"Andrew Wiley" <debio...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1026.1292433894.21107.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Adam D. Ruppe > <destructiona...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> And in those rare cases where you are doing a lot of client side work, it >> is so >> brutally slow that if you start piling other runtimes on top of it, >> you'll >> often >> be left with an unusable mess anyway! > > > Unless you're using the beta of the next IE, the beta of the next Opera, > or > the current version of Chrome, in which case you'd find that client-side > work is becoming more and more feasible. Now, it's not there yet, but when > a > C-ported-to-Java-compiled-to-Javascript version of Quake 2 can get 30FPS > in > Google Chrome, I start thinking that performance probably won't be nearly > as > bad as browsers move forward. >
A game that was designed to run on a 90-133MHz 16-24MB RAM machine (in *software* rendering mode), and was frequently able to get framerates in the hundreds on sub-500MHz machines (using hardware rendering - with the old, old, old 3dfx cards), manages to get *only* 30FPS in JS on a multi-GHz multi-core machine using what is clearly hardware rendering (on a modern graphics card), and I'm supposed to think that means JS is fast? If anything, that's *proof* of how horrid JS is - it turns a multi-GHz multi-core into a Pentium ~100MHz. What a joke! > [HTML5, HTML5, HTML5, Chrome, HTML5, HTML5...] Yea, *eventually* HTML5 will *improve* a few things...That hardly counts as "The web's not a shitty platform!". And what percentage of web users use Chrome? Less than 99%? Well then it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how great Chrome supposedly is, I'm not going to design my pages to require it, end of story, and I'm sure as hell not going to be one of those "This site best viewed with X browser" assholes.