"Andrew Wiley" <debio...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1030.1292438460.21107.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: >> >> 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! >> > > The point was that while Javascript is slow, it's getting fast enough to > be > useful. Yes, it's not C. It will never be. But the fact that any sort of > realtime calculations are possible in it is a breakthrough that will be > reflected in actual application code. > Javascript was not designed to be fast, and honestly, it doesn't need to > be > fast to fill it's niche. > >> > [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!". >> > > Well, there was a list of reasons why it was a shitty platform, and I > showed > that it's not as shitty as it seems. Honestly, I agree that it's a shitty > platform in general, but it's also not nearly as bad as many people think > it > is, and a lot of effort is going into reducing its relative shittiness. >
Fair enough. But I still think it would be far better for people to put their efforts into developing/pushing an alternate that's actually decent on a fundamental level than to blow all that effort on polishing a turd. > > These aren't things coming > *eventually* to each browser, they're things that browser developers are > adding *now*. > Are they in 99.9% of the browsers *actually being used now*? No, they're not. Deployment to user machines doesn't happen instantaneously, nor should it. You can talk about auto-update, but IMO anything that *forces* auto-updates is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. (Optional auto-update is fine, of course.)
