Slashdot Mirror
WebGL Standard To Bring 3D Acceleration To Browsers?
Several sources are reporting that while native audio/video support has been dropped from the HTML 5 spec, the Khronos Group has released a few details about their up and coming WebGL 3D acceleration standard. "The general principle behind WebGL is to offer a JavaScript binding to the group's OpenGL ES 2.0 system, allowing code run within the browser to access the graphics hardware directly in the same way as a standalone application can. As the technology would rely solely on JavaScript to do the heavy lifting, no browser plugin would be required — and it would be compatible with any browser which supports the scripting language alongside the HTML 5 'Canvas' element."
>>> Does WebGL sound like your dreams come true, or are you frightened by the thought that all those hideous Flash-only marketing pages will now have access to 3D acceleration?
... am frightened
What's next, a way to make web browsers faster by making /dev/kmem remotely writable?
read about them...here They appear to be the people who run the OpenGL standard; Apple, Intel, and several others are members.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
Praise be to Moore and his irrefutable law:
We are doomed to use faster and faster Computers and more and more energy, to read pages that might - content wise- just as well run on gopher.
I like this. Why not? It can be expected that web browsers use decent security practices, 3D drivers are already doing a fairly good job of providing a stable API via OpenGL, and everything is floating towards web browsers as new deployment platform, also for games and 3D applications. Better have an open 3D standard than a need of all sorts of plugins where everyone comes up with his own half-working solution. This is the indie game developer's wet dream coming true.
Of course, that's the best scenario. How it plays out in practice, we will have to see.
One CS student VS 893 DOS games: Let's play oldies
While JavaScript is not perfect, it is actually a nice little language. It's just that every retard can "program" in it, and then thinks because he wrote a for loop, he is entitled to an opinion about it.
Few people actually know how to program properly in JS. And the only problem is that JS is too forgiving. Just as the rendering engines for (X)HTML and CSS. But that was the original point. And it's not that bad of a point either.
Because simple scripts are way easier than people think. Every person who can play a shooter, puzzle game, or configure some stuff on his computer, can write acceptable scripts. And even total noobs can write bad ones. I think that is a nice thing.
And this is why you can ignore the (non-pro) masses, ranting about JS.
If it were for me, the scripting interface in browsers would have to support multiple high-level languages anyway: Python, Haskell, Java and Ruby would be those that I'd introduce. But others might want Erlang, Ocaml, and maybe even C++. Why not? If the API is clean, the interpreters work as expected, and everything is sandboxed as it should anyway...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
will require programming in JavaScript
Why is this a bad thing? Or what would you suggest as a better language?
Most people who hate Javascript don't really understand it. I qualify that as "most" because a few people do know enough about it to actually have good reasons for hating it.
won't have a standard GUI framework to use
HTML is more standard than about any other GUI framework, even if less featured.
In fact, something to notice -- most people seem determined to style away the standard GUI elements. Below this message, you'll almost certainly see a "Reply to This" button and a "Parent" button, and unless you've disabled your CSS, they probably look nothing like your standard native buttons.
The issue is that most web designers hate these things, and think they're "ugly". Whether actual users care is up for debate -- they don't seem to have a problem with Google's homepage, for example.
we'll have to code our own from scratch every time as if it's MS-DOS all over again
You mean the MS-DOS, where the network was nearly nonexistent, and applications would largely be written in C or assembly?
I understand your sentiment that the browser feels like a step back, but hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
This way, people will have a pointless, non-native middle-man between their operating systems and their apps!
Better this than Java or C#.
What's more, it's hardly pointless. Or would you rather go back to the days when if you wanted something cool, like the ability to check the weather, receive email, or watch TV, you'd have to download an untrusted (possibly virus/spyware infested) binary .exe, run it on Windows, and hope it doesn't have some weird incompatibility with everything else on your system?
I much prefer the ability to try out pretty much anything I want, in my browser, without having to download/install anything, or uninstall it later. Worst case, I reload the page, or close the tab. Absolute worst case, I have to kill the browser, but no permanent harm.
Oh, and they're portable. I can play with the same apps on Windows, Linux, OS X, an iPhone...
You could argue that the browser isn't the best possible way we could've accomplished that, but those are real advantages it has over the vast majority of desktop apps, especially "fast" ones.
I've wanted nothing more than to program 3D in friggin' JavaScript.
Better than programming 3D in friggin' Flash.
If people are going to insist on taking the Web in this direction, wouldn't you rather it be based on cross-platform open standards?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
HTML+Javascript /is/ the standard GUI framework, that's the point.
If you want something to be pixel-perfect, oh no, it may look a bit off.
If you want something to be useful, HTML has been the way to go for at least a decade.
This, like everything else ever, is not a "let's add this so people can do this" thing, but a "people are doing this, let's make it easier/more standardized by writing down what people are doing and recommending that future browsers be sure to support this"
And of course, like everything else ever, most people aren't going to code to the low-level, but will use higher-level libraries since they care more about functionality than "control".
As for "friggin' JavaScript"... what? When I have problems with writing javascript, it's because of IE6 or Firefox-specific bugs, what's your problem with it? Just don't want to share your source code?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
"Several sources are reporting that while native audio/video support has been dropped from the HTML 5 spec" is hard to reconcile with http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video (and the same document is available at the W3C, O doubters). It seems (gasp) that several sources can be...wrong!