The only option is for employees to show that it will cost them in the long run through turnover and training new employees
Yeah, except that in this case, it won't. Most games are failures; it's totally a hit-driven business. So, for the most part, writing a coherent, maintainable, well-written-and-architected piece of code is a NON-GOAL in this industry. It's far more profitable to write a pile of crappy code (licensing libraries where possible) that can be thrown away in the (likely) event of product failure.
The mere fact that they can. Work 'em hard, burn 'em out, let 'em leave -- no worries, there are always more eager young fresh faces willing to take over at the salt mines, because Writing Games Is Cool!
I worked there during that time, it's all true. The truism here is that too many young coders think that writing games is "cool", so they'll put up with bullshit to do it... while the company (correctly) figures that they can burn 'em out with no worries, as there's always more young talent eager to take their place.
Mod this guy up. While it's an impressive demo, saying "He implemented Flash in JavaScript" is severely misleading... he implemented a subset of Flash 1.0 (circa 1996 or so) in JavaScript. It's a nice demo and I'm guessing that it will be useful for some trivial things, but he has a long way to go to get to Flash 10...
Yeah, I hear JavaScript has great video codec support. And webcam/mic support. And audio playback support. And all that is pretty much uniform across major browsers.
Really, HTML5 video is a no-go until the browser vendors can agree on a codec, and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon... Mozilla will never go for H.264 due to licensing concerns, Apple has no incentive to go with anything else (since their hardware supports it directly), Microsoft has its own VC.1 codec they are still vainly pushing...
On a side note, not sure why my parent post got marked as Troll; I'm guessing someone has a beef with the politically based comments I posted yesterday in a different thread, and is trying to punish me here.
Nah, more likely it's because Adobe is a company that it's currently fashionable to bash in the open-source community, and on Slashdot in particular.
And it's *definitely* unfashionable to say good things about Flash -- heavens, it's not open source!
> Adobe is pretty much at the top of the list for exploits
Well duh. Flash is on, what, 95%+ of all desktop web-browsing systems. When Windows + IE ruled the web-browsing world, criminals looked for exploits there. Now that other browsers and OS versions are more popular, Flash is a more attractive lowest-common-denominator.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely they'd all bail ship and get jobs at employers willing to pay
Well, that certainly what *I* did...
12 hours a day, 6 days a week is not that bad, that's 72 hours a week
It is if you are only getting paid for 40 hours...
The only option is for employees to show that it will cost them in the long run through turnover and training new employees
Yeah, except that in this case, it won't. Most games are failures; it's totally a hit-driven business. So, for the most part, writing a coherent, maintainable, well-written-and-architected piece of code is a NON-GOAL in this industry. It's far more profitable to write a pile of crappy code (licensing libraries where possible) that can be thrown away in the (likely) event of product failure.
What makes game development a permanent crunch?
The mere fact that they can. Work 'em hard, burn 'em out, let 'em leave -- no worries, there are always more eager young fresh faces willing to take over at the salt mines, because Writing Games Is Cool!
sigh...
May I remind you of Electronic Arts:
http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/
I worked there during that time, it's all true. The truism here is that too many young coders think that writing games is "cool", so they'll put up with bullshit to do it... while the company (correctly) figures that they can burn 'em out with no worries, as there's always more young talent eager to take their place.
Mod this guy up. While it's an impressive demo, saying "He implemented Flash in JavaScript" is severely misleading... he implemented a subset of Flash 1.0 (circa 1996 or so) in JavaScript. It's a nice demo and I'm guessing that it will be useful for some trivial things, but he has a long way to go to get to Flash 10...
...and that's how Emacs stayed its original, trim self.
At my company, the coffee's still free, and it's still Peet's. (Bay Area readers know what I'm talkin' about: yummy, yummy rocket fuel.)
Yeah, I hear JavaScript has great video codec support. And webcam/mic support. And audio playback support. And all that is pretty much uniform across major browsers.
Well, you could start here:
http://hg.mozilla.org/tamarin-central
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/
You seem to have confused "fact" and "opinion".
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
not use a plugin
...except for Chrome Frame. Right? That one's OK, 'cuz it's from Google, and all open-standard-ish.
</sarcasm>
Buggy drivers tend to have stupidity like this
FTFY
> Flash was introduced here because it just works.
Even MossPuppet agrees with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZctLzH7EptA
Really, HTML5 video is a no-go until the browser vendors can agree on a codec, and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon... Mozilla will never go for H.264 due to licensing concerns, Apple has no incentive to go with anything else (since their hardware supports it directly), Microsoft has its own VC.1 codec they are still vainly pushing...
Adobe has made it VERY clear they have no intention of supporting web standards
[citation needed]
Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Photoshop... all about as web-standard-supporting as it gets.
Flash's ActionScript3 was spec'ed to an early draft of the (sadly torpedoed) EcmaScript4 spec.
On a side note, not sure why my parent post got marked as Troll; I'm guessing someone has a beef with the politically based comments I posted yesterday in a different thread, and is trying to punish me here.
Nah, more likely it's because Adobe is a company that it's currently fashionable to bash in the open-source community, and on Slashdot in particular.
And it's *definitely* unfashionable to say good things about Flash -- heavens, it's not open source!
Flash was a target long before it even reached anything approaching 95% ubiquity in the marketplace
[citation needed]
Flash has been at 95%+ penetration for YEARS now.
> Adobe is pretty much at the top of the list for exploits
Well duh. Flash is on, what, 95%+ of all desktop web-browsing systems. When Windows + IE ruled the web-browsing world, criminals looked for exploits there. Now that other browsers and OS versions are more popular, Flash is a more attractive lowest-common-denominator.
I don't want to sync multiple libraries... I want a single library that I can share between machines.
C'mon, Apple, this ain't rocket science!
VP6 runs adequately on punier cpus
There is no codec that will run adequately on typical smartphone CPUs of today, VP6 included.
Acceptable video performance requires hardware acceleration.
Hardware for running H.264 is commonly available.
AFAIK there is no commodity hardware available for On2 codecs.
That's gotta be Tom Strong, or perhaps the Five Swell Guys...
Bogus, debunked here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/
Whose toxic manufacturing processes make it an ecological disaster
[Citation Needed]
If closed source was ever done fully, we'd all be using IE 6 or something, no wouldn't we?
Wait, what?
Fuck you, Unix and Unix-like operating systems! Die already!
(Hey, similar sentiments got the parent modded as "Insightful"... surely I'll get the same respect for my reasoned opinion?)