Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

JavaScript Gameboy Color Emulator

Posted by Soulskill on from the taste-the-rainbow dept.

Prosthetic_Lips writes "A programmer named Grant Galitz has released a GameBoy Color emulator written in HTML5/JavaScript, and it will run ROM images stored locally. What's amazing is that it runs the games at a playable speed. We discussed a different, but similar project six months ago, but it seems like this one is pretty complete at this point. It's also open source."

153 comments

  1. GBC JavaScript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Holy shit someone made JavaScript useful?!?

    1. Re:GBC JavaScript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should have a look at QML from Nokia/Qt Community. Some of the apps look stunning and use Javascript to control the game logic

    2. Re:GBC JavaScript by jonescb · · Score: 2

      The x86 emulator running Linux in Javascript wasn't impressive enough to you?
      http://bellard.org/jslinux/

    3. Re:GBC JavaScript by ctrimm · · Score: 1

      It's been useful for a long time, you just didn't know how to use it properly.

    4. Re:GBC JavaScript by Funnnny · · Score: 1

      Now we can hope noone say that benchmarking Javascript is pointless

    5. Re:GBC JavaScript by greenreaper · · Score: 1

      What use is that to a console gamer?

  2. Why? by syousef · · Score: 1

    It's really cool, and I bow to his technical prowess for getting it working, but I have to ask why anyone in their right mind would choose HTML5 and Javascript to implement a Gameboy emulator???

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Why? by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if you can visit this site on the phone with a modern browser for example...

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shit... i should quit my ps3 HTML5/JS emulator project

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      well. think about it. your walled garden mobile device has to do js and html5 soon enough. .. ..so it's not so walled garden anymore. it shows how futile it is to try to keep censoring what you can run on a device from the user.

    4. Re:Why? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      As long as you limited yourself to Java applets, there never have been any walls whatsoever on the iPhone. Apple allowed Java applets, uncensored, from day one. However, developers weren't happy about being restricted to this inferior and slow language, and wanted to make native apps to take full advantage of the device. The "walls" are only for those native apps (which would have no trouble whatsoever running Gameboy games at 10 times the native speed while this Java Gameboy emulator is getting headlines for being "playable"). So no, nothing new here...

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's really cool, and I bow to his technical prowess for getting it working, but I have to ask why anyone in their right mind would choose HTML5 and Javascript to implement a Gameboy emulator???

      You answered your own questions in your opening remarks.

    6. Re:Why? by Canazza · · Score: 1

      What? who mentioned Java?

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because phones and desktop computers run at exactly the same speed right?

    8. Re:Why? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, Java, Javascript, whatever

    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right.
      Around 1GHz.

    10. Re:Why? by teh+kurisu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe they want it to run on Windows 8.

    11. Re:Why? by narcc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, Java, Javascript, whatever

      There is a HUGE difference.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're a fool. You have absolutely no idea what Java/Javascript/applet/midlet means do you?

    13. Re:Why? by michelcolman · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Jave/Javascript/Javawhatever are all object-oriented programming languages that are (supposed to be) platform-independent and as a result, due to various translation and other issues, run rather more slowly than native code. Yes, Java and Javacript are TOTALLY different, just like tigers and polar bears are TOTALLY different (if you disregard the fact that they're both large carnivores and therefore incredibly similar from an alien point of view). My point is that, if you were happy using non-native code, no "walls" have ever stopped you on the iPhone.

    14. Re:Why? by michelcolman · · Score: 0

      Java/Javascript/Javawhatever are all object-oriented programming languages that are (supposed to be) platform-independent and as a result, due to various translation and other issues, run rather more slowly than native code. Yes, Java and Javacript are TOTALLY different, just like tigers and polar bears are TOTALLY different (if you disregard the fact that they're both large carnivores and therefore incredibly similar from an alien point of view). My point is that, if you were happy using non-native code, no "walls" have ever stopped you on the iPhone.

    15. Re:Why? by narcc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, you're an idiot.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    16. Re:Why? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Elaborate much?

    17. Re:Why? by max · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. They might both be of the same magnitude of order, as in around 1GHz, but there definitely is a real noticable difference between the old 1GHz processor i bought around a decade ago, the 1GHz processor in my iPad and the 1.42GHz on my relatively old desktop.

      Clock speed is not comparable when you have different architectures and the surrounding hardware differs greatly.

    18. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not??

    19. Re:Why? by Canazza · · Score: 1

      You confused Java and Javascript for one.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    20. Re:Why? by michelcolman · · Score: 0

      I explained that I do know that there's a big difference, but that they are also very similar. Object oriented languages, not native, etc... Tigers and polar bears, remember I wrote that? Yes, they are used for different things. One runs in the browser, the other runs in a box in the browser (or in other places), WHATEVER! They are similar, period.

    21. Re:Why? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      -1 Redundant.

    22. Re:Why? by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      JavaScript isn't OO in the same way that, say, Java and C# are. Java is class-based, JavaScript is prototype-based. JavaScript is also dynamically typed while Java is statically typed.

      --
      SSC
    23. Re:Why? by bberens · · Score: 1

      Because someone who is looking for an expert Javascript developer is going to offer him a job at $200k+.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    24. Re:Why? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I have to ask why anyone in their right mind would choose HTML5 and Javascript to implement a Gameboy emulator???

      Platforms that require digital signatures with an expensive certificate for native applications often do not require them for JavaScript applications.

    25. Re:Why? by wisty · · Score: 1

      Yes, Java and Javacript are TOTALLY different, just like tigers and polar bears are TOTALLY different (if you disregard the fact that they're both large carnivores and therefore incredibly similar from an alien point of view). My point is that, if you were happy using non-native code, no "walls" have ever stopped you on the iPhone.

      Um, no. The iPhone doesn't *have* Java support. Yes, they are like polar bears and tigers. And the iPhone is like Antarctica. To an alien visiting Antarctica, there's a big difference between a polar bear and a tiger because only one of them lives there.

      And yes, I know that there's a difference between Antarctic and The Arctic Circle, but they are both kinda similar, right? Except for the lack of polar bears ...

    26. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JavaScript truth table:
      [ see link - filter won't let me post ]

      source

    27. Re:Why? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The same reason they have three-legged races.

    28. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java is also a real, object-oriented programming language, while Javascript is solely a web scripting language. With very little in common with Java.

    29. Re:Why? by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      A painful death isn't fun to watch. I hope you concede defeat :/

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    30. Re:Why? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Yes, I get it, Java and Javascript are different, give me a break! Google for "Java Javascript difference", count the similarities and count the differences. I found more similarities than differences. Yes, one has to be compiled and the other doesn't. Yes, one is a scripting language and the other isn't. I don't care. They are languages with a C-ish syntax that are mainly used to run little programs in browsers (yes, Java can run outside of a browser too, I know), they are slower than native code and have more limited access.

      Just forget I said Java and replace it with Javascript in the original message.

    31. Re:Why? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm a total idiot for mistakenly seeing any similarity whatsoever between Java and Javascript. I humbly apologise. I bet this message will be modded insightful now ;-)

    32. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, and there's only a couple inches difference between a vagina and an asshole. Not that you woudld care since there's only one chromosome difference between a vagina and a penis.

    33. Re:Why? by EricX2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, a modern 6 core 3GHz processor runs around 1GHz... like Road Runner running around Wile E. Coyote.

    34. Re:Why? by grantgalitz · · Score: 1

      $200k, seriously?

    35. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not?

    36. Re:Why? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Java is also a real, object-oriented programming language, while Javascript is solely a web scripting language. With very little in common with Java.

      Well, several years ago you could say Javascript was solely a web scripting language. It's showing up more and more as a general-purpose scripting language in stand-alone applications. It's actually much cleaner and faster when divorced from the browser, because 90% of the annoying cruft associated with Javascript is actually the crappy HTML DOM, browser events, and so on.

    37. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And do the games run well enough on a phone to bother? How about UI? Can you even control them without a keyboard?

    38. Re:Why? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Because you need a 3GHz machine to emulate a GBC, right?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    39. Re:Why? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      but there definitely is a real noticable difference between the old 1GHz processor i bought around a decade ago, the 1GHz processor in my iPad and the 1.42GHz on my relatively old desktop.

      Considering that the topic at hand is GBC emulation, I'm doubtful that there would be any noticeable difference.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    40. Re:Why? by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Emulation is a lot different than native processor running code. Emulation means emulating the very processor the original roms ran on, which means a whole heck of a lot of wasted clock cycles. It may in fact make a difference. I remember having trouble running N64 roms on my 1.8 ghz machine.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    41. Re:Why? by timid3000 · · Score: 1

      They are languages with a C-ish syntax that are mainly used to run little programs in browsers (yes, Java can run outside of a browser too, I know)

      I think you don't realize your ignorance, ask google the right questions. Java is mainly a server language now, with execution speeds close to native performances, contrary to javascript.

    42. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iPad/iPhone?

    43. Re:Why? by bberens · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's jobs out there with that kind of salary for top notch web development (html, css, javascript). They're usually leading teams of other developers for high profile companies like Google, Yahoo, etc. You probably have to be willing to move, but the money is out there if you're good enough to pontificate on end about the different implementations of each of those technologies between browsers and the versions of each of those browsers.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    44. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IPads and iPhones can't run this well, because of:
      1) Keyboard inputs
      2) Mobile Safari is too damn slow (Apple put speed and memory throttles in)

  3. It runs pokemon red! by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    http://i.imgur.com/HX3pF.png
    Render me impressed. The sound is a bit of a mess but works better than that javascript Doom from some days ago.
    I don't have a ROM for pokemon gold/silver but they might work as well. Pretty cool.
    (Why pokemon and why should you care? It squeezes the gameboy until the last drop)

    1. Re:It runs pokemon red! by kirbysuperstar · · Score: 1

      I would have thought the port of Donkey Kong Country would have pushed it more. At least graphically.. I guess Pokemon has a LOT more values to keep track of.

    2. Re:It runs pokemon red! by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I have a self-dumped pokémon red rom, and it does indeed run pretty well.

      Colour me impressed!

    3. Re:It runs pokemon red! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It crashes at Worms Armageddon though.

      But I could play Mario nicely. :)

      Two things:
      1. The sound mess seems to be a general problem. I've seen in with other things too.
      2. I think the reason it runs playably, is because it automatically skips frames. Try disabling that for a real assessment.

    4. Re:It runs pokemon red! by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Well yes, graphically speaking DKC or even the infamous Resident Evil and a few other titles I can think about, do push the console much further in graphics.
      However, pokemon required a lot of clever and/or gross hacks to fit everything in the minuscule available space. It's like cramming a modern-style database in a 8086.
      (I believe the second generation (gold/silver/crystal) used a larger ROM size so they could relax a bit and fit stuff more liberally, but read about the "glitch pokemon" "Missingno" which offers some insight about the hacks used to fit pokemon green/red/blue/yellow into that ridiculous ROM size)

    5. Re:It runs pokemon red! by kirbysuperstar · · Score: 1

      Oh right, that glitch. I was just learning about programming basics when I learned why that happend and it blew my mind out of my skull.

    6. Re:It runs pokemon red! by grantgalitz · · Score: 1

      If you like pokemon you might like http://www.grantgalitz.org/PokemonCrystal/ Enjoy a day no productivity now. :)

    7. Re:It runs pokemon red! by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Nah, I have acute versionitis so I am playing Black and White because it has more of everything. Although it can be a feat to finish Crystal in a javascript emulator of all things.

    8. Re:It runs pokemon red! by grantgalitz · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you'll play Pokemon Emerald in the JavaScript GameBoy Advance emulator I'm still working on. In b4 the emu wars. :O

    9. Re:It runs pokemon red! by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Impossible! You must be trolling!
      A GBA emulator would be extreme. Shouldn't you start with something smaller like...megadrive(genesis) or pc-engine(tg16)?
      Although if GBA-style visuals are possible and manageable in javascript, I will be really tempted to do games in there...I am worried about the sound though, none of this cool javascript demos seems to get sound right judging by slashdot comments.
      Ahem, I digress. If you aren't trolling, I hope to see that emulator showcased in here as well.

    10. Re:It runs pokemon red! by grantgalitz · · Score: 2

      The audio issues lots of people here are experiencing is not actually due to the emulator running slow. It's because of bugs in the various browsers and the fact that browsers like google chrome and opera take more time blitting than running the CPU emulation in JS. I render all the gfx in JS, I only blit them at the end of each iteration via a canvas-wide putImageData. Yeah, chrome can't run it fullspeed when your window is maximized, but not for the reason you're thinking of (webkit is retarded and takes up a whole core to render even at 20 fps). The gameboy advance emulator that's still being coded does run slower, but dynarec is being worked on to fix that. GBA games can be dynarec'd because they don't require as much clock cycle accuracy as GBC games. The dynarec is still going to land afterwards once the interpreter is fully baked. And yes, scaling of the sprites and BGs is done in JS, not canvas, because canvas is believe it or not slower. Yeah, I'm calling out the sucky gfx performance in webkit alright. :/

    11. Re:It runs pokemon red! by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Damn, I'd mod you informative if not because I posted already. That's a lot of insight on the topic in a single post.

  4. This actually works =D by EnderDom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ring in sick...
    Google Pokemon ROMs...
    Download Pokemon Gold...
    I'll be back in 20 hours...

  5. It's also open source. by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

    It's also open source.

    Are there any JavaScript applications which aren't?

    --
    If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    1. Re:It's also open source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those that have been minified, for one.

    2. Re:It's also open source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there any native programs without assembly code? Same concept applies.

      Normal -O2 cl/gcc asm output can be read more easily than greatly obfuscated JS.

      BTW, "open source" generally refers to the license.

    3. Re:It's also open source. by bberens · · Score: 1

      Normal -O2 cl/gcc asm output can be read more easily than most non-obfuscated javascript I've read :P

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  6. ROM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could have at least included a demo ROM to run. *grumble*

  7. Remember back in the day... by DMFNR · · Score: 1

    Remember back when JavaScript was good for little more than web forms and maybe some silly sparkling rainbow ponies? It's amazing how far this little language has come. I think a lot of these developers start projects like this just to show they can. Preconceptions die hard with developers. There's a lot of developers out there still afraid to use anything other than C++ for a basic desktop application because, "those other languages are slow". In think in the open source and *nix communities attitudes like this are the reason we end up with a lot of unmaintainable messes of C, because anything else is a "toy language". Sure, size and speed are still important considerations, we're all familiar with a few modern day programs that can eat a gig of memory and bring a dual core to a crawl, but it is all too common for people to blame this on the language and not the implementation.

    So I think projects like this are awesome because they can help shatter these perceptions. Now I don't do any web programming these days, so I'm pretty unfamiliar with what enhancements have been implemented in the language and what tools and frameworks have been developed, but from looking at the code for a lot of these large JavaScript and HTML 5 projects, I still think the language has a long way to go before it can become a preferred tool for major software development. Large projects in most dynamic languages seems to still be a messy undertaking, after all, these languages were designed for ease of use and speed of development and I doubt they were built with an eye towards building large applications. So it will be interesting too see what the future holds, as "the cloud" seems to be the way of the future (like it or not) and we'll be seeing things like JavaScript being used in ways we never thought possible. It will be especially interesting to see what Microsoft has up their sleeve with the recent reports that Windows 8 will put HTML 5/JavaScript interfaces to the forefront. Love or hate Microsoft, I could see some interesting development tools for web based programming coming from them in the near future.

    1. Re:Remember back in the day... by DerPflanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a lot of developers out there still afraid to use anything other than C++ for a basic desktop application because, "those other languages are slow".

      Euhm. JavaScript *is* slow. In this case, it runs a technology of 13 years ago in a platform-on-a-platform. On hardware that is a zillion times faster than a handheld game computer. I have the feeling computers get more and more sluggish the last years, just because of all this eye candy and layer-upon-layer.

      Remember C64 boot times? It was subsecond. Granted, it loaded almost nothing, but it is also 30 years ago. But even the iPad (dedicated hardware, relatively small OS footprint) needs several tens of seconds to boot.

      --
      -- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
    2. Re:Remember back in the day... by DMFNR · · Score: 1

      You're right, and I'm not trying to say JavaScript is just so damn blazing fast people should rewrite all their FORTRAN code in JS. I'm just saying that a lot of progress has been made making the language somewhat capable. It's come along way in the last 10 years. I guess I went off topic a bit, as I wasn't specifically referring to JavaScript with that comment; I was talking more about why people do fun, but somewhat pointless projects like this in a language like JavaScript. It's good fun do things with languages and platforms that they aren't expected to be capable of doing. It's like the QuickBASIC community people making 3D games and stuff with QB4.5. Take what we've heard so far about Windows 8, or all of the work Qt is doing integrating JavaScript in to their framework. Given my own prejudices about JavaScript I would have never even considered giving it a major role in as desktop OS's UI framework. We use native code for that goddamnit. We'll see how it works out I guess...

      But I definitely agree with you about all these layers of abstraction slowing things down these days. So much stuff is an emulator running in an interperter that compiled to byte-code that runs in a virtual machine that runs on native code that calls a huge framework that it's starting to become a bit ridiculous. These things all have their place, but I'm beginning to think that the x86 platform in general has had such a long run that all of our software is starting to become such a pile of cruft on top of cruft that I look forward to some new fangled architecture to take the world by storm just so we can start anew.

    3. Re:Remember back in the day... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So am I the ONLY one that sees this and thinks "Wow, if they can run an emulator in nothing but HTML V5 and JS what kind of malware will they be cooking up with this tech?". Excuse me for being a bit of a party pooper but I fix infected machines all day and nearly all new infections I see are JavaScript based either by using browser trickery (you should really see the Windows Update site they have cooked up for Firefox, it is REALLY good) or some sort of drive by download.

      So maybe its me, maybe I'm wrong, but I've been thinking for years instead of bolting ever more onto JavaScript maybe, just maybe, we should be looking at a new language for the web? Maybe something that automatically starts in a "penalty box" until it passes inspection, and doesn't allow a single page to be made up of sometimes dozens of scripts from all over the place?

      Because frankly all these tricks like sandboxing and low rights mode just seem to me to be band aids on bullet wounds. JavaScript has been around since 1995 and the web is a vastly different (and nastier) place now than it was then. There has to be some way to let sites have their bling bling bullshit without making the user run untrusted code on their machine.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Remember back in the day... by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Isn't QuickBasic a compiled language? If so, I don't see anything weird in making 3d games in it, even on old and slow hardware.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    5. Re:Remember back in the day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has to be some way to let sites have their bling bling bullshit without making the user run untrusted code on their machine.

      It's called the "iTunes App Store".

      Any method other than a walled garden runs into the twin demons of the halting problem and social engineering.

    6. Re:Remember back in the day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compiled BASIC really isn't that fast, in general. The compilers weren't smart enough to optimize the code well and BASIC didn't allow for much code optimization unless you wanted to drop straight into assembly code.

    7. Re:Remember back in the day... by grantgalitz · · Score: 1

      Can has malware? Yeah, I agree. :/

    8. Re:Remember back in the day... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Remember C64 boot times? It was subsecond.

      Wait, what are you talking about? Do you mean booting to (presumably) the BASIC interpreter (built into ROM), or actually booting off of a 5.25" floppy into an OS? If the latter, I doubt sub-second. Maybe a couple of seconds at best.

      I never had a C64, I am comparing with the general features/abilities of other computers of the time.

    9. Re:Remember back in the day... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Do you mean booting to (presumably) the BASIC interpreter (built into ROM)

      The one second boot is booting into BASIC interpreter, as that essentially was the C64s OS/commandline. Loading stuff from a floppy of course took a whole lot longer.

    10. Re:Remember back in the day... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you had a floppy in the drive, doesn't it boot directly from that?

      In other words, that was my point that I didn't state too clearly -- that most people wouldn't actually get that sub-second boot time, since they'd be booting a floppy to get an OS/run a program.

    11. Re:Remember back in the day... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you had a floppy in the drive, doesn't it boot directly from that?

      No, it would always boot into BASIC from which the user then had to load the game manually with LOAD "*",8,1:RUN. Only the later Amiga did auto-boot into whatever floppy you had in the drive. The C64 however had a module slot, so that you could for example insert an enhanced BASIC module and if that was inserted, on power on, the C64 would boot directly into that, instead of the default BASIC, again that was essentially a second.

      Now of course, actually loading a game from floppy could take minutes, but having the BASIC interpreter essentially always in a second was quite impressive, I can't even start a modern browser that fast even when the OS is already loaded.

    12. Re:Remember back in the day... by equivocal · · Score: 1

      You are not the only one.
      Reminds me a but of the sentiment that cropped up in Western-genre stories where the old-timer sees the frontier close and feels a sense of loss that none of settlers understand.

      It mystifies me that there were people who invented a programming language and thought it was a good idea that you turn over control of browser to these programs whenever and wherever it found them. Genius!

      newegg decided that their product pages wiil now only display pices with javascript (I wonder how many realized that). How can I convince newegg to not do that? I can't--"be a good little consumer and run our javascript, we wouldn't hurt a fly". How can I run just the javascript to show the price? That's web2.0 heresy--run it all or get off the net. Like grandma says, a little bit of javascript is like a being a little bit pregnant. (hint: the price is in a javascript array of html snippets in a separate js file. Genius!)

  8. speed of your computer getting you down? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Finding that your machine is fast enough? Noticing that previous generation native software runs at a good speed, providing you the security of physical barriers and an uptime which doesn't require you to rely on hundreds of cooperating network, storage and service companies? Worried that it's too easy to trust the admins in your own office more than any number of competitors, foreign governments and bored hackers?

    Then you want... THE CLOUD. Turn your PC into a graphical terminal and turn the UI and responsiveness clock back 15 years. Show off to your friends that, thanks to the uniquely layered framework making up THE CLOUD, only you have a machine modern and beefy enough to emulate a 4MHz Z80. You too can have what you had with Windows 95, today!

    1. Re:speed of your computer getting you down? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sadly there is no "insightful AND funny" mod, because you deserve it. How many perfectly working machines end up in the landfill simply because web bloat has made them unusable? Thank goodness for Chromium based because if it weren't for Comodo dragon I'd be having to toss this 1.8GHz Sempron which makes a wonderfully low power and quiet nettop, simply because FF would make it unusable for the web otherwise, and even then if I didn't have ABP it wouldn't be usable.

      I'm sitting here looking at 4 AMD Athlon machines with 512Mb of RAM at 1.4GHz and frankly I'm amazed I found a guy to even give me $20 a piece for them, as nobody seems to want anything that can't run FB and YouTube fast. Most of the laptops that go through here end up in the garbage in less than 5 years, why? Web bloat makes them feel like turtles.

      Maybe its just me, maybe I'm getting old, but I find it kinda sad that so much working gear ends up in the dump simply because web bloat kills cycles dead, and if it can't do the net folks don't want it. I don't want to even know what all that HTML V5 is gonna do to those 10s of millions of late model P4s that are still running. I'm already starting to get a drawer full of P4s simply because the combo of web+IM means that anything less than a Pentium dual feels like a slug but luckily I found a place with $34 Pentium duals so at least the whole machine won't have to be canned.

      I just think its sad the whole "web 3.0 bling bling edition" causes so much hardware to end up shitcanned, especially when desktop apps like OO.o and VLC run just fine.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:speed of your computer getting you down? by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      Bwahaha so true :-)

    3. Re:speed of your computer getting you down? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I'm as fed up as anyone with the hype surrounding "the cloud", and wish that energy was directed at more long-sighted initiatives like getting universal IPv6 support (which would make much of the need for "the cloud" unnecessary).

      However software not improving much in responsiveness even while the technology gets much faster is due to increased security layers, increased hardware abstraction layers, more things going on at once, software development environments which put the priority on dev time rather than computer time, and not least vastly increased functionality.
      If Windows 95 was so responsive and great go use it!

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:speed of your computer getting you down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel your pain...
      Recently customised 256 MB RAM 1.6 GHz laptop for family use. Luckily it's still powerful enough to run Arch Linux, Midori and Youtube without dying. It just didn't handle FF, or even fluent VLC playback for that matter. Technology runs on, without looking back or even giving the less able [machines] a chance to keep up.

  9. I did something like this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did this NES emulator for fun the other weekend.

    It's running DK, renders in WebGL for fun.. Leans heavily on typed arrays, so you'll need the latest FF or Chrome (Chrome seems to run a tad faster). It's nowhere near fully optimized or playable. It'll probably crash your browser . Was more of a test of JS under load than anything else.

  10. "Open source Javascript" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait a sec, is it even possible to hide Javascript code? Thought it was open by design, being client side and all...

    1. Re:"Open source Javascript" by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      There are obfuscators, changing function names to two letter ones, and removing whitespace.

    2. Re:"Open source Javascript" by johnnysaucepn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because it's not obscured, doesn't make it open source. The author retains copyright, and still has the right to place it under any licensing terms he/she likes.

    3. Re:"Open source Javascript" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being unobscured does make it open source...

      What being unobscured doesn't make it is Free software.

    4. Re:"Open source Javascript" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's an optimizer. changing the names to really long ones make it harder to read. and you can't obfuscate the system calls(they wouldn't work if you did). same goes for java, python and anything. but with javascript it's as hidden as it was in qbasic.

    5. Re:"Open source Javascript" by lucian1900 · · Score: 2

      No, you're wrong. If the source is available, then the source is available and that's it. Open Source has additional licensing requirements http://www.opensource.org/

    6. Re:"Open source Javascript" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      If I can see the source code unobfuscated and without charge then it is open source.

      No, 'open source' was a term coined to convey a specific meaning. Free Software means something else too. Try here.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. cool shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is cool, also that it accepts the base 64 string of the encoded rom file. but unfortunatly i cant post the base64 encoded pokemon gold to slashdot due to "illegal characters" :)

    but why oh why are the keys Z, X used ? on my german keyboard this is an EPIC FAIL...

    1. Re:cool shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So re-map them or add the American English keyboard layout and hot-swap with the Alt-Shift hotkey.

  12. Pretty much my feeling by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've no issue with stuff being online. I love the Internet, it is a major part of my life both in terms of entertainment and profession. However let's be straight as to when it is and isn't useful. This "Let's do everything in a webbrowser," shit is stupid. No, let's not. There is nothing wrong with local, native apps and indeed there's efficiency advantages to be had.

    Maybe someday we'll have processors so ridiculously overpowered it won't matter, you'll be able to run everything in a very high level language, all sandboxed up, with all kinds of crazy overhead and still have great performance and do it on less than a watt. However until that day, I think there's plenty of room for more efficient things on your computer.

    That is all, of course, not to mention any of the security or privacy concerns you note.

    I like the progress of technology but I dislike the fadism. People get in to these various fads with no real thought of if they are a good idea for everything. Currently "the cloud" and 3D video top my list of stupid fads. Not that having remote, distributed, data storage and computing is useless in all cases, but we had that before "the cloud." "The cloud" is rather ill defined and just seems to be BS speak for "Let's do everything somewhere else online because... well I don't know but it is an awesome fad!"

    Seriously people, use the right tool for the job.

    1. Re:Pretty much my feeling by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I love the Internet

      Yes, but.

      The Internet is like that hot girlfriend that promised to give you a threesome with her and her twin sister, but you've been with her for three years, spending money all your money on her and now the twins are starting to get fat and skanky and they still haven't put out and now they're starting to become nothing but a pair of greedy sluts. On top of that they've both got these suspicious sores around their mouths.

      Yes, that's the Internet.

      I like the progress of technology but I dislike the fadism.

      The "fadism" is how all the money's being made. And if you haven't noticed, the only purpose for the Internet now is to make money. The Internet is nothing but a 24-hour home shopping channel on cable television and no matter how many times you change the channel, it's still a 24-hour home shopping channel.

      Think about the promise the Internet showed in its early days and now think about what it's become.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Pretty much my feeling by tepples · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with local, native apps

      I can think of a few things:

      • Several popular platforms require all native applications to be digitally signed, and there's so much bureaucracy in getting an application signed that a smaller firm cannot compete.
      • Local applications are usually packaged in such a way that the user must have administrator privileges to install it, and not everybody who uses a computer is its owner. Some applications are distributed as a "portable application", which installs to the user's home directory or from removable media, but some organizations use operating system security facilities ("noexec /home" on UNIX or "Software Restriction Policies" on Windows) specifically to prevent this.
      • Even on a home PC, where a sympathetic administrator is usually within easy reach, downloading and installing an application is a psychological barrier to using the application. Would you want to have to download and install an application just to shop from an online store? That's one reason why some people choose Amazon MP3 over iTunes Store: no need to install the iTunes software.
      • A web application runs on any platform that has a web browser. That's another reason some people choose Amazon MP3: iTunes software simply isn't available for several minority operating systems.
      • Deploying updates to an application is easier: just push the update out to your server, and it's available to all users to use immediately.

      However until that day, I think there's plenty of room for more efficient things on your computer.

      Conventional wisdom appears to hold that efficiency in the programmers' time often outweighs runtime efficiency on the customer premises equipment.

      Seriously people, use the right tool for the job.

      I agree. But in a lot of cases, a web application is less wrong.

    3. Re:Pretty much my feeling by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      You have very colorful analogies for someone with the word "Pope" in his user name.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:Pretty much my feeling by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Several popular platforms require all native applications to be digitally signed, and there's so much bureaucracy in getting an application signed that a smaller firm cannot compete.

      Since you mention iTunes separately, I presume you are referring to are referring to the iPhone here. There have been lots of one-programmer apps that have shown up on the App Store. How exactly can't a smaller firm compete?

    5. Re:Pretty much my feeling by tepples · · Score: 1

      Since you mention iTunes separately, I presume you are referring to are referring to the iPhone here.

      I'm largely referring to Nintendo and Sony video game consoles. Not all game concepts work well on a PC or a phone.

    6. Re:Pretty much my feeling by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Several popular platforms require all native applications to be digitally signed, and there's so much bureaucracy in getting an application signed that a smaller firm cannot compete.

      You're being deliberately vague with "several popular platforms" because you're probably referring to games consoles or something rather than general purpose platforms we're talking about. Can you get comparable gaming performance from a web app?

      Local applications are usually packaged in such a way that the user must have administrator privileges to install it, and not everybody who uses a computer is its owner. [...]

      "Web apps are a way of bypassing the environment's security policy." And please don't respond with the statement that HTML/Javascript engines are 100% secure so it's totally OK to break these rules as it won't have any technical consequences.

      Even on a home PC, where a sympathetic administrator is usually within easy reach, downloading and installing an application is a psychological barrier to using the application.

      The minute or two required to install an app is easily made up for by the improved responsiveness within the first hour of usage of a native app. If you're really lazy and impulsive - and environments with the sole purpose of selling you overcharged crap are your predator - then I can see an advantage to an instant start to your experience.

      A web application runs on any platform that has a web browser.

      Bahaha, no it doesn't. It runs on any platform sufficiently modern/powerful to cope with the extreme overhead of web apps, with a sufficiently modern implementation of the ever-bloating web standards, and with appropriate input/output to make the app actually usable. A simple shopping cart would be an example.

      Deploying updates to an application is easier: just push the update out to your server, and it's available to all users to use immediately.

      Or maybe your users want to choose whether to update.

      Conventional wisdom appears to hold that efficiency in the programmers' time often outweighs runtime efficiency on the customer premises equipment.

      I find web app development way harder than traditional native development. Natively I don't have every few months to learn a new set of ever-changing buzzwords and their unnecessarily complex APIs.

      I wrote my first "web app" before its time over a decade ago for a well-known accounting software firm, a client relationship management system. The system's main purpose was to gain quick access to information prepared in a thoroughly customisable way. That is where HTML - not HTML&Javascript hybrid pain - can shine.

    7. Re:Pretty much my feeling by tepples · · Score: 1

      you're probably referring to games consoles or something rather than general purpose platforms we're talking about.

      A lot of users don't own their own PC.

      Can you get comparable gaming performance from a web app?

      No, but millions of FarmVille players will attest that Adobe technology gives good enough gaming performance. And HTML5 performance is better than zero performance and an error message "The application could not be installed because its signature is invalid."

      "Web apps are a way of bypassing the environment's security policy."

      Pretty much. If operating systems had easy-to-reach UI for creating a sandbox in which to run native applications, as in "point, click, jail", this workaround wouldn't be as necessary.

      If you're really lazy and impulsive

      Which a lot of end users are, especially users who routinely use a web application on several machines that don't belong to them.

      It runs on any platform sufficiently modern/powerful to cope with the extreme overhead of web apps, with a sufficiently modern implementation of the ever-bloating web standards

      I imagine that PCs and other devices capable of running a WebKit-based browser are more common than PCs that run Windows applications, though I'm ready to be proven wrong.

    8. Re:Pretty much my feeling by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      A lot of users don't own their own PC.

      Which users are you thinking of? Don't handwave an argument.

      No, but millions of FarmVille players will attest that Adobe technology gives good enough gaming performance.

      "Look over there, it's something else."

      And HTML5 performance is better than zero performance and an error message "The application could not be installed because its signature is invalid."

      What is your obsession with signatures? The two top platforms have no mandatory app signing by default. It's an option for Windows but it's entirely at the discretion of the guy who controls the client machine.

      Which a lot of end users are, especially users who routinely use a web application on several machines that don't belong to them.

      This might be true for casual usage such as checking for information or reading mail, but which user routinely gets sustained, productive work done on machines which are in no way prepared for him to use them?

      I imagine that PCs and other devices capable of running a WebKit-based browser are more common than PCs that run Windows applications, though I'm ready to be proven wrong.

      Justify your statement. There are millions of deployed PCs which are several years old. We know that well over 90% of desktops run Windows and even more are capable of running Windows, while those more than 4 years old will struggle hopelessly on modern web apps.For example, there are mountains of usable Pentium IV machines which work fine as an information browser and using native desktop Office on XP - even Office XP would be fine. So many are relegated to the scrap heap because they cannot cope with less fully featuerd web incarnations of native equivalents.

    9. Re:Pretty much my feeling by tepples · · Score: 1

      A lot of users don't own their own PC.

      Which users are you thinking of?

      Someone in a school computer lab, in the break room at work, or in a public library or Internet cafe uses a PC that he does not own. A school-age child uses a parent's PC that he does not own.

      What is your obsession with signatures?

      All popular set-top interactive devices, which are not general-purpose PCs, have them.

      This might be true for casual usage such as checking for information or reading mail

      Or someone who spends all day on Facebook and on things linked from Facebook.

      but which user routinely gets sustained, productive work done on machines which are in no way prepared for him to use them?

      Not all applications are tools for "sustained, productive work". Consider a regular user of a PC in the break room at work, where IT has authorized web applications but not unapproved native applications.

  13. Props by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    Nicely done!

  14. C64 > GBC by Per+Wigren · · Score: 2

    Cool, but not as cool as the JavaScript C64 emulator.

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  15. The Cloud: you keep using that word... by pnot · · Score: 1

    ... I do not think it means what you think it means. This is a story about an emulator which runs client-side and can read local ROMs. Just because the magic words "Javascript" and "HTML" are in there doesn't mean it's "in the cloud".

    1. Re:The Cloud: you keep using that word... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 0

      To refute God, first you must define Him.

      Proceed.

    2. Re:The Cloud: you keep using that word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To refute God, first you must define Him.

      A broken mirror with a light shining into it; that light equals "god".
      Things overlapping outside our perception of time; the source of randomness.
      Dogs plus cats. (i.e. Blasphemy is the sound of a woof plus a meow)

      Eh, I frequently use a web based circuit simulator, because I'm lazy.

  16. What about Dynamic Recompilation by Edsj · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to make something like or we will be doomed to slow interpreted code?

    1. Re:What about Dynamic Recompilation by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      You could JIT generate Javascript which is then JIT compiled itself...

    2. Re:What about Dynamic Recompilation by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Sup dawg, so I heard...you know the rest.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:What about Dynamic Recompilation by James+Carnley · · Score: 1

      It's hard to parse your sentence, but JavaScript is no longer interpreted, it's compiled down to machine code at run-time by browsers. It's not very slow nowadays.

  17. Challenge Accepted by upto0013 · · Score: 1

    Link's Awakening at work? Challenge accepted.

  18. Offline, JIT, and camera by tepples · · Score: 1

    My point is that, if you were happy using non-native code, no "walls" have ever stopped you on the iPhone.

    Three differences:

    • Apps that use CACHE MANIFEST and localStorage to remain available offline appeared to be limited to 5 MB last time I checked. Game Boy Color ROMs were already up to 4 MB.
    • JavaScript is slow on iPhone due to lack of JIT. JavaScript in Safari has become faster on iOS 4.3, but pages bookmarked on the home screen still use the old slow interpreter.
    • And how does a program written in JavaScript request access to the camera and microphone? For example, how would a Game Boy Color emulator written in JavaScript emulate the Game Boy Camera?
    1. Re:Offline, JIT, and camera by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose it probably does not have access to the camera, unless html5 provides access to it somehow. Which confirms my point that the comment about the "walled garden" not being so "walled" anymore was off the mark. Nothing has changed, you're not running native code. The walls apply only to native code, and those walls are still intact.

    2. Re:Offline, JIT, and camera by MadChicken · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, 5MB is the default, and if it grows the user is prompted to allow the increase. That may be just for databases though, I haven't personally tested it.

      See: http://ofps.oreilly.com/titles/9780596805784/ch05_id35816678.html

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
  19. Re:C64 GBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ugh, every time I hit the space bar it jumps down the page like a 'tard.

  20. PDRoms.de by tepples · · Score: 1

    They could have at least included a demo ROM to run.

    Take your pick.

  21. Author Here by grantgalitz · · Score: 1

    My JavaScript gameboy color emulator is not related to the one the op has you believe was incompletely done months ago, that's imran's and it's still an incomplete one. The sound may sound bad, it's not my fault, it's actually your browser, since in some cases I need to fallback to flash outputting the audio due to a lack of a JavaScript API to drive the realtime audio. Try running it in firefox 4 for better audio. And for those saying this is another gameboy color emulator in JS, nope, you're just thinking of the incomplete and toy gameboy only ones on the Internet that only can run like 5 games ok, with everything else crashing.

    1. Re:Author Here by grantgalitz · · Score: 1

      Hmm it seems the op changes the details on the project from months ago by imran, thanks for saying it's different and not the same project, you must have corrected it in this repost.

  22. retro iPad gaming begins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This definitely opens the door to retro gaming on the iPad... Page loads, but I guess I'd have to save my ROMs at an Internet accessible URL. Probably going to need to add some buttons and stuff to the page...but I can envision the possibilities. NES anyone?

    1. Re:retro iPad gaming begins! by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Apple changed their stance on emulators a while back. There are is a licensed C64 emulator with games, for example, in the App Store( tm)

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  23. Other JavaScript emulators by hattig · · Score: 1

    It's not the only JavaScript classic system emulator.

    For example, here are TWO different JavaScript Amstrad CPC emulators: http://www.cpcbox.com/ http://roland.antoniovillena.es/
    A Spectrum emulator! http://jbacteria.antoniovillena.es/
    TRS-80: http://jtandy.antoniovillena.es/

    Of course the first two systems here are 4MHz Z80s, not 8MHz Z80s like the Gameboy Color.

    1. Re:Other JavaScript emulators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GameBoys didn't use a Z80 CPU, they use a custom CPU designed in the spirit of the Z80. The timings and some opcodes are different.

    2. Re:Other JavaScript emulators by hattig · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I see, a Hitachi CPU halfway between an 8080 and a Z80.

    3. Re:Other JavaScript emulators by andromeda1 · · Score: 1

      Another JavaScript TRS-80 Model III emulator (with non-obscurified code): http://trs-80.com/
      JavaScript Apple ][: http://www.megidish.net/apple2js/
      JavaScript Linux PC: http://bellard.org/jslinux/
      etc.

      (also the C64 emulator mentioned above)

      JavaScript is the new 8-bit emulation hotness!

  24. Re:C64 GBC by hattig · · Score: 1

    The author really needs to sort that space bar issue out.

  25. Still walls by tepples · · Score: 1

    The walls apply only to native code

    Then please allow me to rephrase: The 5 MB wall, speed wall, and camera/microphone wall apply to non-native code. I'd like to hear why these aren't walls.

    1. Re:Still walls by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I was originally replying to someone saying that the walled garden is "not so walled garden anymore". I haven't actually seen any walls come down. Of course there are still limitations to JavaWhatever. But it's not like someone suddenly took down walls by programming in JavaScript. The walled garden is still unchanged. The possibilities outside the walls which are being used for the emulator, and the limitations, are still unchanged too. Nothing new. That's all I ever meant to say.

  26. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since HTML is the future of mobile applications this is a good place to start! All this programmer needs is some UI help because that is one ugly emulator.

  27. Pokemon Crystal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I herd u liek Pokemans: http://www.grantgalitz.org/PokemonCrystal/

    Week wasted..... AAAAAWWWW YEEEEAAAH

  28. Does it play sound ? If yes, how ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone tried it. I am interested to know if it plays sound and if yes, how does it manage to do that. Is it using any javascript library to play sound ??

  29. Gameboy Emulator for MSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not as cool as GEM, the Gameboy Emulator for MSX, which emulates a good percentage of games (incl. Zelda and Metroid 2) at playable speeds on a 7MHz Z80-derivative MSX turboR.

  30. Re:C64 GBC by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

    Cool, but not as cool as the JavaScript C64 emulator.

    Umm, whatever your beliefs about the relative "coolness" of both the C64 and the GBC, it can hardly be argued that the thing you linked to is cooler than this GBC emulator. Not only is the GBC considerably more complex as a machine, the emulator is surprisingly complete and very usable.

    --
    This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
  31. Nezulator by Dwedit · · Score: 2

    Wow, we have a thread about a Javascript Gameboy Color emulator, and nobody has mentioned Nezulator, the Javascript NES emulator.

    1. Re:Nezulator by grantgalitz · · Score: 1

      Why is no one giving love to NES? D:

  32. Sad state of software by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    What's amazing is that it runs the games at a playable speed.

    It's really a sad state for software in general when something like this is considered "amazing".

    1. Re:Sad state of software by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      What, emulating a 4 MHz, 8 bit CPU with bitmap graphics on a 3 GHz, 64 bit machine with a multi-core GPU isn't exciting? It runs *at full speed*!

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  33. iOS? by slapout · · Score: 1

    But does it work in iOS?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:iOS? by andromeda1 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem playable on an iPad 1.

  34. Re:C64 GBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got pretty decent hardware, and tried the site in several modern browsers (among which Firefox and Chrome) and I'm getting approximately 0.3 f/s. I'll stick with a normal emulator, thank you very much.

  35. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kind of old news ... HTML5 Nintendo emulators have been around and open source for about 2 years now ...
    http://benfirshman.com/projects/jsnes/
    http://code.google.com/p/gwt-nes-port
    http://zelex.net/nezulator/

  36. Pretty Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While this may not be a the most ideal use of Javascript - albiet a fun one.
    It demonstrates that we can now do things with Javascript that were previously only
    the domain of plugins like flash.

    Think about it like this - most of the old 8bit / 16bit era games and early PC 3D games (and software) can
    easily be running in HTML5 / Javascript in a cross platform way. By this I do not mean
    via emulation, This shows us that we have the power to do these things NATIVELY with ease.

    I find that prospect pretty exciting that no-longer will we be dependant on a computing platform / operating system
    to enjoy the same things.

    Here's an interesting project for someone - port the JVM into javascript....

  37. Again? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    This is months old, and this was covered on Slashdot months ago already.

    Besides, there's a Canvas-based NES emulator in progress, too.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
    1. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NES was already done by bfirsh long ago. I bet it's in the slashdot archives. There's also a JS GBA emulator being worked on. ;)

  38. DHTML Lemmings (since 2003) by Dr.Ruud · · Score: 1

    Obligatory, and still great:

    http://www.elizium.nu/scripts/lemmings/

    http://www.javascriptgaming.com/2009/03/dhtml-lemmings.html

    http://crisp.tweakblogs.net/blog/3881/dhtml-lemmings-primer.html