Processing Visualization Language Ported To Javascript

Manfre writes "On his birthday, John Resig (creator of jQuery) has given a present to developers by releasing Processing.js. This is a Javascript port of the Processing Visualization Language and a first step towards Javascript being a rival to Flash for online graphics content. His blog post contains an excellent writeup with many demos."

Comments

Re:'polished turd'

[AKAImBatman]

Flash doesn't exist anymore to do animation or dynamic graphics, it exists to run fast.

Wait, are we talking about the same Flash? Because I've done a lot of Flash and Actionscripting, and "Fast" is not even in the vocabulary. Software rendered graphics pipeline? Check. Slow VM interpreter that makes Java 1.0 look fast? Check. Lack of direct rendering APIs? Check. Focus on animation at the expense of dynamic scene creation? Check.

Granted, Flash 9 is a major improvement, but it is arriving rather late in the game.

Re:Heh AvP comes ot mind here

[Anonymous Coward]

You lose anyway. You and the rest of the "ASCII text forever" crowd don't speak for me.

Eric

[erickhill]

Regardless if this is usable today for client work, this is insane stuff. The first iteration of Flash eons ago had plenty of nay-sayers. He made this over the course of seven months? Bow down, I say. Very impressive.

Re:'polished turd'

[AKAImBatman]

JS interpreters are not optimized to do image manipulation, DOM updates, etc.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Optimized for image manipulation? You do absolutely ZERO image manipulation in Javascript. Same with Actionscript. All that is pushed down into the Canvas and Flash rendering engines, respectively. Same thing with DOM manipulations. Sure, you say "insert this item" or "delete this object", but it's the C/C++ engine under the covers that does the heavy lifting.

People haven't done their own image manipulation since Amigas stomped the earth.

Right now it's always faster(CPU %) to do an animation in Flash then it is to do the same animation in JS.

You make that statement, yet you posted a benchmark that showed Javascript to be faster than Flash. I'm rather confused. You do realize that the benchmark you posted below was in millisecond and not operations per second, right? i.e. Lower is better.

You have zero evidence for your statements. Listen to someone who actually knows something about these platforms. There's no reason why Javascript can't perform the same function as Flash using the Canvas APIs. And you know what? That's not a bad thing. :-)

Re:Not going to happen

[ozamosi]

I know, and so does everyone else.

You know, I recently heard about a project by John Resig (creator of jQuery) called Processing.js. It's a Javascript port of the Processing Visualization Language, which means it could be viewd as a rival to Flash for online graphics content.

You should check out his blog post

In case the sarcasm wasn't obvious enough: that's one of the most important things that Javascript libraries solve

Re:'polished turd'

[AKAImBatman]

I mentioned this above, but I'll reiterate it here. In that benchmark, LOWER IS BETTER. The brand-new Flash 9 VM engine did excellent (as I expected it would), but the Flash 7 and 8 engines were generally creamed by the Javascript engines. Which I don't think is what you're trying to prove at all.

The secret to the performance of Flash 9 is this little beauty: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/

A fully modern, high-performance, Just In Time compiler that gives the JVM a run for its money. It's an amazing piece of Javascript technology that Adobe has donated to the Mozilla project for inclusion in the next major revision of FireFox. Wonderful, wonderful engine that absolutely no one is using yet.

See, if you compiled to Flash 7 or 8, you're still triggering the Flash 8 engine. The Flash 9 engine is a complete rewrite that only works with Flash 9 content. So the next chapter of performance wars has yet to be written.

Q.E.D.

Re:Creator of WHAT?!

[grahamd0]

Can someone please explain to me why anyone would regard jquery as a black mark on John Resig's work?

I've found it very useful for anything but the most mundane js tasks. Certainly better than the piles of other libraries that all seem to be based around the fallacy that javascript needs classical inheritance. (Hint: It doesn't. It has prototypal inheritance.)

Re:Creator of WHAT?!

[grahamd0]

Actually, I said it was useful for anything except the most mundane tasks (where the overhead of loading a library is not justified by the task).

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

[Em Ellel]

Thus, anything outside of the above (images, pixel processing, and text) should work "ok" everywhere. Is it just me or does graphical language that does not fully support image, pixel, or text processing seems a bit.... silly.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a cool toy I will be playing with, but until it actually works in more than one beta browser, its is no threat to Flash at all.

-Em

Re:My Post

[fuzzy12345]

javascript is crappy scripting language for use with HTML. [...] Java is a full blown object oriented programming language I think you meant to say "Javascript is a full blown power-users' language, basically Lisp but with syntax problems, whereas Java is a crappy low-level language; the COBOL of the millenium."