Originally posted by Luke_Wolf
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SIMD JavaScript Support Added To Firefox, Under Review For Chrome
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Pajn View PostAnd tailoring for different input types is easy as well. Right now there isn't a ready
API for asking for touch support but I can check for a platform that will probably
support touch (includes phone, mobile, tablet or touch in the User Agent) or platforms
that are nearly always touch (Android).
And no, I don't have to make any compromises at all.
Originally posted by Pajn View PostPeople seems very happy with Spotify even if it doesn't look native. Or look at Android
where overly other app looks completely different.
Originally posted by Pajn View PostAnd I I do want it too look native everywhere, I can do that. I will just have to write
platform specific code for every OS, just as I would have otherwise any way. And I can
still keep all background code the same. Mostly it is CSS that would be changed.
Originally posted by Pajn View PostI guess you mean Xamarin which does NOT run on Jolla and Ubuntu Touch for instance.
Also it requires writing platform specific code so it isn't even write once compile everywhere.
Also while you're focusing on the writing of platform specific code you're forgetting one major thing that makes it so that distribution in a platform specific manner is transparent to end users. The only people downloading and running binaries are using a PC, everyone else is using a distribution network, commonly called an App Store, or on linux a Package Manager to handle software distribution. Which means that a "universal binary" is only a relevant concept within the scope of PCs.
Originally posted by Pajn View PostWhat do you mean with "not going full in on the static typing"? If you want to statically
type everything, then do. It just gives you the possibility to dynamically type it if you
want (which you can do in languages like C# and Java too, just pass it as object).
Also yes you can do that in C# and Java but using generics and type inferencing variables is generally speaking a much better practice, as you keep static type checking while getting an amount of dynamicism in the code.
Originally posted by Pajn View PostFirst, that is much more work.
Second, what happens to a user that want to run it on a platform for which you
haven't built it? It doesn't matter if your code could support it or not, it wont help
the user.
Second if it's opensource then they can compile it from source if they really want to and it's not my problem (tm), it's the problem of the distribution's specific packagers.
if it's closed source then not only is it not my problem but it's probably against their EULA or if not there'll be a clause in there that says I'm not responsible for you trying to run it on unsupported platforms.
Originally posted by Pajn View PostAnd what about platforms that you can't compile to even if you want, like game
consoles and smart TVs?
.NET runs on the Xbox 360, (under development for) the PS3 & PS4, and if Microsoft isn't stupid will run on the XBone, It also runs on the Wii
On the handheld side the PSVita (AFAICT based on their developer site) exclusively runs .NET, and I can't tell but I'm guessing you can also run it on the 3DS
Also obviously except for the Vita I can use C/C++ for any of the consoles, and C++ is the go to language for that kind of development anyway, Application distribution is handled either via physical media or through their associated digital distribution system and so as a result multiple binaries are not a massive concern as separate builds are required anyway.
Finally consoles are typically underpowered enough (the current generation is using netbook CPU cores) that they require device specific tuning in order to approach anything close to reasonable performance with modern graphics. Which means you need multiple versions of the code anyway.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pajn View PostThen why do you talk as you obviously have no data to back your statements?
Originally posted by Pajn View PostI however, do.
The numbers of computers that have Java installed is in fact higher since a lot of browsers
now have started to block Java until accepted.
Originally posted by Pajn View PostAsm.JS is a subset of Javascript yes. A totally static subset that is compiled from a language
like C, but needs to be compiled again to be run on a processor natively. a.k.a. bytecode.
Your point is correct, however it still isn't Javascript. Just a Javascript compatible bytecode.
This is an example (from the specs):
function diag(x, y) {
x = +x; // x has type double
y = +y; // y has type double
return +sqrt(square(x) + square(y));
}
Indeed, quoting from the asm.js FAQs:
"Q. Why don't you specify a bytecode syntax instead of strange JavaScript idioms?
A. For compilers like Emscripten or Mandreel, the syntax of a bytecode language simply isn't that important. In fact, most bytecode and machine languages have non-human-readable binary formats. However, we may create a more human-readable surface syntax for asm.js, which could be used for convenient disassembly and human read/write-ability."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caligula View PostFact is, JS is NOT interpreted anymore, it's a JIT compiled modern language. Another fact is, I can't just install Python or Java on my iPad, Android phone, Chrome OS, Enterprise Windows at school or work. Why? The reason is not technical, it's political. The whole Mozilla is now run by JS inventor. Of course we will shove JS down our throats no matter what you think. They have been actively enforcing JS for ages. You've seen PDF.js in Firefox? I'll tell you. It's purely crap. It's slow and buggy, but they're enforcing it. You can't choose.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pajn View PostPeople seems very happy with Spotify even if it doesn't look native. Or look at Android
where overly other app looks completely different.
And I I do want it too look native everywhere, I can do that. I will just have to write
platform specific code for every OS, just as I would have otherwise any way. And I can
still keep all background code the same. Mostly it is CSS that would be changed.
People can make it look whatever they want. The power of Web 2.0 / HTML5 / JS.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostThe problem is that doesn't really work, you can't just scale things to a screen size without making serious compromises one way or the other. It really has to be tailored to the input type as well. While large buttons for instance are nice for fingers I don't want them to be that big when I'm using a mouse and keyboard.
API for asking for touch support but I can check for a platform that will probably
support touch (includes phone, mobile, tablet or touch in the User Agent) or platforms
that are nearly always touch (Android).
And no, I don't have to make any compromises at all.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostYou probably would also want it to look integrated with the appropriate device as opposed to looking the exact same everywhere, but then again you might not *shrugs* I know a lot of people do though
where overly other app looks completely different.
And I I do want it too look native everywhere, I can do that. I will just have to write
platform specific code for every OS, just as I would have otherwise any way. And I can
still keep all background code the same. Mostly it is CSS that would be changed.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostFurther I do know mono will work across all of the devices you've listed :P
Also it requires writing platform specific code so it isn't even write once compile everywhere.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostYeah dart actually is pretty interesting I'll give you that and certainly a massive step up from javascript (not that it's a very high bar) I don't agree with it not going full in on the static typing but it's a step in the right direction and I'm hoping will go fully static in the future.
type everything, then do. It just gives you the possibility to dynamically type it if you
want (which you can do in languages like C# and Java too, just pass it as object).
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostHowever I do not agree that the web is the only portable platform. That said portability to me (and most developers) means source portability, binary portability is simply a distribution detail which isn't that big of a concern
Second, what happens to a user that want to run it on a platform for which you
haven't built it? It doesn't matter if your code could support it or not, it wont help
the user.
And what about platforms that you can't compile to even if you want, like game
consoles and smart TVs?
Leave a comment:
-
Let me get this straight:
``All future software will be written in Javascript... With Javascript you just need a browser...etc.,''
With a Browser you have a C/C++ platform. So what myopic mind thinks an interpreted language, no matter how much you add to it, including non-interpreted capabilities thinks Operating System Vendors are turning their entire proven platforms over to a Browser? Too many I'm afraid.
Sorry, but C/C++ are expanding use, never mind ObjC exploding in use as tools of the trade.
There is no goddamn way I'm writing a Web App on iOS, or OS X, not to mention Windows or FreeBSD. GNOME training people on Javascript as some sort of gateway language drug is impotent.
In the end, C/C++/ObjC and Java [until Enterprises dump it for something else like they did to C++ in the early 00s]. FORTRAN/Matlab and others for specialized engineering/scientific work.
Python, PHP, Ruby, Lua, Perl will all be around. LISP, Prolog, whatever else will still have their niches.
Javascript will continue to be less and less prominent as more and more of its UI functionality is built-into CSS.
Once security issued are worked out in a sandbox, both WebCL and WebGL will eventually be containers for straight OpenCL and OpenGL enabled systems.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostWell obviously you need the LLVM runtime in order to do the JITing, and assuming that you have installed LLVM on those devices and you bundled all of the libraries you required into it (and that the libraries support all of these platforms) then yes in theory it will. However last I checked Android doesn't have LLVM as part of it's image and the PS4 may or may not.
That all said trying to run the same unmodified program across all of those platforms plus a desktop is stupid. You are going to at a minimum want different binaries with completely different UIs using paradigms appropriate for the platform coded into them which JS is not going to help with.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caligula View PostJavascript also comes with a fixed equality operator. Problem solved. Just like PHP has one.
Originally posted by caligula View PostFact is, JS is NOT interpreted anymore, it's a JIT compiled modern language.
Originally posted by caligula View PostAnother fact is, I can't just install Python or Java on my iPad, Android phone, Chrome OS, Enterprise Windows at school or work.
Originally posted by caligula View PostWhy? The reason is not technical, it's political. The whole Mozilla is now run by JS inventor. Of course we will shove JS down our throats no matter what you think. They have been actively enforcing JS for ages. You've seen PDF.js in Firefox? I'll tell you. It's purely crap. It's slow and buggy, but they're enforcing it. You can't choose.
Originally posted by caligula View PostSome Linux systems have switched to dash so Bash is not a standard. I also don't know what shell my Android devices or iPad has. I doubt Bash.
Originally posted by caligula View PostAnyways, think of the modern platforms: tablets, phones, smart TV, desktop, server, set top boxes, etc. They ALL are migrating towards a browser based interface.
Originally posted by caligula View PostBrowser is the de facto standard today. It's a terrible platform in many ways, but everybody seems to like it and that's where the money is.
Originally posted by caligula View PostJS now has SSE and AVX and GPU acceleration.
Originally posted by caligula View PostPeople are forced to use Firefox, Chrome, IE, Opera. All other browsers will be ridiculed and forgotten. Only hardcore nerds will use them and miss the old Web 1.0. Mainstream users want something that works.
Originally posted by caligula View PostJS is the cool new intermediate language. It's probably worse than academic bytecode formats, but technical merits don't matter. JS will be replaced with something better in the future but now a great political force is pushing JS as intermediate format and there's nothing you can do about it.
1). Do what I'm doing already and not write my applications completely in Javascript
2). Help promote other people doing the same.
Originally posted by caligula View PostLast time I checked, shumway was better than gnash. The developers and people who spread media hype also like the more liberal licenses and want to differentiate from toenail eating FSF guys.
well I'm going to stick to using the adobe plugin regardless
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pajn View PostNo Android doesn't have it, nor does iOS, Ubuntu Touch, jolla or anyone else.
However everyone got a browser.
No I don't want completely different UIs, I want one UI that scales to whatever screensize
it requires, that support both mouse, keyboard and touch. Doing that using modern
web technology isn't hard and doesn't require much time if done properly from start.
Further I do know mono will work across all of the devices you've listed :P
Originally posted by Pajn View PostThat is why Google have developed Dart.
Whatever you think of Javascript (I don't like it) the web is the only truly portable
platform and developing for it in sane languages (Dart) is a real possibility.
However I do not agree that the web is the only portable platform. That said portability to me (and most developers) means source portability, binary portability is simply a distribution detail which isn't that big of a concern
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: