Is JavaScript Ready For Creating Quality Games? 165
kumpetan writes "After seeing so many games built with JavaScript, and considering the applications it powers and the use of Ajax, it seems like web developers are now in the game development pot. It is getting easier and more popular with libraries like jQuery, MooTools, Prototype, etc. There are even libraries like Game JS, GameQuery or JavaScript GameLib, specifically for this purpose. So, will we start to see more ambitious game projects arise using these tools?"
breakout (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like this [internet.com]? Breakout is a fairly simple game that requires only minimal animation. That makes it relatively easy to program. That doesn't mean it can't be done better. The breakout example I linked to it pretty choppy once you slow it down to a reasonable speed.
I wrote a DHTML version of Pong a while back that is far superior. Here's a link. [dnsalias.com] The underlying architecture was very primitive when I wrote it, not having features like the Canvas tag available. And yet it is one of the better Pong variations on the
I like how (Score:2)
in chrome the javascript breakout game you linked runs too fast to humanly play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another great one is DHTML Lemmings [elizium.nu]
java != javascript (Score:4, Informative)
javascript is more like scheme with a C syntax (the one and only syntax, all hail!)
http://www.quantumg.net/tetris.php [quantumg.net]
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Presses 'down' key on keyboard
Seeing page scrolling down
Is JavaScript Ready For Creating Quality Games? NO
Re: (Score:2)
The keys are A-D to move, S to rotate, hold X to drop.
This is 100% pure javascript baby.
QuantumG
Think yourself fucking lucky that I even implemented the arrow keys. I sure as hell don't remember doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
why would you build a tetris game that *doesn't* use the cursor keys !?
Re:java != javascript (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, for some ungodly reason, everyone still uses keyboards that put the cursor keys on the same side as the mouse. Surfing the web is all about the freakin' mouse.. so making a web game that requires you to take your hand off the mouse is a bit silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I accept your point. I hadnt considered it because my cursor keys were about 1" from my trackpad!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Notice what happens if you rotate an L shaped piece into an already occupied position?
Another great win for JavaScript.
Compare to the "bugs" in authentic Tetris games (Score:2)
Notice what happens if you rotate an L shaped piece into an already occupied position?
But is it any more odd than what happens in authentic Tetris games if you rotate a T shaped piece into an occupied position [ytmnd.com]? What about what happens if you lay down a piece and keep spinning it [ytmnd.com]? Not only are these behaviors not considered bugs, they're actually required by The Tetris Company in authentic Tetris products published on or after 2001.
Re:java != javascript (Score:4, Informative)
Needs work. Here's my version, complete with an adapter for Internet Exploder:
http://java.dnsalias.com/tetris/ie [dnsalias.com]
(Mine is based on the NES version rather than the more modern Tetris versions, so use UP to rotate, DOWN to make it drop faster, LEFT/RIGHT to reposition the piece. If you use IE, click outside the block-drop area to make sure that it has proper focus as I have not finished the adapter.)
While not as pretty, there's also an online multiplayer version written in Javascript here:
http://www.wiicade.com/gameDetail.aspx?gameID=1063 [wiicade.com]
That one is not mine, though the programmer did use my network technology. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I like your version.
Re: (Score:2)
You're too kind. :-)
You can see some videos of a PacMan game I was working on as well as the evolution of the Tetris game here: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=thewiirocks&view=videos [youtube.com]
I used to have a very pretty Space Invaders game written in 100% DHTML, but I never released it where anyone could see it. If you're curious, shoot me an email sometime and I'll point you to it. While it had sound effects and music, the underlying code was not nearly as good as I could have done. (It was written before
Re:java != javascript (Score:5, Funny)
That's a feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There are Java games, so why not JScript? (Score:4, Informative)
I very seriously doubt the designers of Java would have envisioned someone making a couple of FPS out of their creation.
Java was originally designed [wikipedia.org] to be a multi-media platform for televisions. It's 2d and 3d APIs are, although simple, pretty good. Actual functionality was bolted on later (see ya Vector!).
Re: (Score:2)
Easier? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is getting easier and more popular with libraries like jQuery, MooTools, Prototype, etc
What does "easiness" (of programming) have to do with the end quality of the game? It could probably be argued that "easiness" (fancy API's etc) actually reduce the quality of games by giving tools to people who do not know how to wield them properly. This is obviously not true for all games; there are simple games that can be adequately programmed in lots of languages. Addictive, puzzle-like, entertaining games. Then there are other games that push the envelope of what is possible. Pushing the envelope does not make a good game though so I digress.
To cut a long story short I don't think the availability of libraries etc to do the grunt work of games will improves things. In fact, I think it may result in an influx of poorly programmed/poorly thought-out games written by people who know enough to program a web page or move a LOGO turtle. It may of course be great for prototyping.
Note to QuantumG: Exclude your tetris implementation from the above comments. Nice work.
Re:Easier? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's because most game developers wont want to pratt about for weeks trying to get the core Javascript stuff done, they'll want to write games.
The availability of these libraries mean they can do that.
There's the argument that developers always used to have to write their own driver layer and such in the DOS days and then build a graphics engine on top of that so it's not like game developers didn't used to have this barrier and yet still did well. The problem with that argument is back then, everyone had to do that, nowadays people could just go build something with Flash or just do a non-web game with XNA or something instead.
The importance of good and easy to use libraries means Javascript has a more level playing field with other technologies that currently attract game developers.
Messing around developing the underlying APIs, framework and such detracts from the important part of developing games- developing the game itself. The more time that can be spent actually developing games, the more potential there is for the games to be better because more time can be spent on the actual gameplay.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think we'll ever eliminate bad games on some specific platform no matter how easy we make it to make games for that platform.
What we will see is an overall increase in games, and with that an increase in good games. It may be that we only get 1 good game for every 100 crap games, but I don't see that as a problem because people will play the good games and ignore the crap ones- as long as there are more good ones out there than that's what we want. Easy to use libraries allow for that, they allow 10
Re:Easier? - Readers Digest Condensed version: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While that's a good argument, those libraries are often complex, and not optimised for what you want to do. Function calling in JavaScript is more expensive than in other languages as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the most obvious ease brought by AJAX and browsers is not cited : it makes multi-player games and online content easier to do, it abstracts completely the network protocols. Now, serving a thousand AJAX request is not the same as serving a thousand UDP socket connections (the former uses more resources) but I think that this could create a new niche of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does "easiness" (of programming) have to do with the end quality of the game?
It's not so much "easiness" as "speed", which is crucial.
If you have two programmers instead of four, your game is cheaper to make.
If you have four programmers, and your competitor also has four, if you choose something "easier", you'll get to market faster than them.
It could probably be argued that "easiness" (fancy API's etc) actually reduce the quality of games by giving tools to people who do not know how to wield them properly.
Anyone can find a way to abuse any tool. I would argue that the cleaner and easier the language, the more readable the code, and the easier it is to find out who those people are.
Contrast this with something like, say, Java or C, and someone co
Re: (Score:2)
"What does "easiness" (of programming) have to do with the end quality of the game?"
Not a programmer?
If you have to spend weeks doing the basic, grunty underlying stuff (with assembler, let's say), that's less time you have to spend on quality interface, graphics, sound, innovation, vision, finesse.
GREAT languages let you do a lot with a little.
No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Matter of performance, not language capabilities.
Writing games in JS is rather easy, rather pleasant, rather fast. It's a nice language for the programmer, due to very flexible structure (override built-in methods? yay!) and has some great development tools (Firebug), and it's a nice language for the user, because everyone has a web browser, no installation required.
It's not nice for the machine. First, it's an interpreter. Second, due to this very extreme flexibility it won't ever be very efficient. It's s
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's an interpreter.
Actually, it's just-in-time compiled and run in a VM, on modern browsers.
A language cannot, by itself, be interpreted or compiled -- that's a property of the implementation. It is, in fact, possible to have interpreted C.
Second, due to this very extreme flexibility it won't ever be very efficient.
Take a look at some of the recent work done on Javascript engines, particularly in Chrome. I wouldn't be surprised if it got at least as fast as Python or Java.
It's sandboxed, meaning it can't run natively at full speed, every operation must be scrutinized security-wise.
Actually, no. I'm fairly sure modern implementations don't do this, and I know for a fact that it's possible to sandbox something w
Re: (Score:2)
VM = interpreter. No matter how much marketing people may want to convince you otherwise. If it's not native code, it's not run by native CPU, but by a virtual machine, it means it's interpreted.
Guess why people don't write quality games in Python and Java.
UNIX is an OS, running on bare hardware. It introduces a serious performance impact over running the app on bare hardware, a'la DOS. Javascript is embedded inside a browser which acts as OS for it. OS inside OS. Extra abstraction layers. Suddenly the slow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VM = interpreter. No matter how much marketing people may want to convince you otherwise.
Sigh... [wikipedia.org]
If it's not native code, it's not run by native CPU
And what do you think happens to your C source? It's not native code, it's a bunch of ASCII.
It then produces native code -- just like a VM does. The only difference is when this happens.
Guess why people don't write quality games in Python and Java.
Because they don't know better?
Most games do, in fact, implement some sort of scripting language to implement AI, game logic, etc. The smarter ones use an existing language, rather than rolling their own. WoW uses Lua. Civ4 uses Python.
As for virtualization, try virtualizing a different architecture than your native, say running a virtual MIPS machine under an x86 system.
I'll have to find you a citation later, but from what I understand, there was onc
Re: (Score:2)
"That's not a flaw of Javascript, it is a lack of an API. I see no reason why a vblank couldn't trigger a Javascript event."
Heh, and that's what shows you're just a newbie.
I see. File a bug in bugzilla.mozilla.org "Javascript needs a vblank trigger". If it isn't RESOLVED WONTFIX in first week, it will stay unresolved for the next eternity and some. The reason is not because it can't be done, it's because nobody will do it. You're confusing theory with reality. Try getting this feature in Explorer, talk with
Re: (Score:2)
In Firefox, which is in fact written mostly in Javascript (or at least most of the user interfaces is) and which uses a superset of functions available to webpages for that, including "dangerous" functions like file I/O, it does the work of providing the user with Javascript by restricting/limiting/crippling/sandboxing the very same engine it freely uses for purpose of creating the UI.
Quite a few of Firefox security holes were based exactly on shortcomings of this sandboxing, access to "system-only" methods
Re: (Score:2)
If something costs lots and lots of time and effort to create, it will take quite a bit of resources to run as well.
Are you sure you're a programmer? Because that is the most absurdly wrong thing you've said all day...
There are decades of research into sorting algorithms, for instance, and these are focused in reducing the amount of resources they take to run, for a given set of input. In the extreme example, people often rewrite things in assembly to make them go faster on a particular machine -- are you going to tell me that assembly is slower than C because it took more time to write? Or are you going to tell me the a
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to prove your point by suggesting purposely wrong solutions as examples?
Look, the best algorithms will have complexity of O(n). The five-minute solution would be "Send me the data pre-sorted, you have more CPU power on your side", of complexity of O(0).
People rewrite things in assembly if these things were way too slow for their purposes. Meaning they get faster, but still slow. A five-minute solution would be to remove the whole part which does it, and use precalculated data, or hiring a bun
Re: (Score:2)
The five-minute solution would be "Send me the data pre-sorted, you have more CPU power on your side", of complexity of O(0).
In other words, I'm surprised it took you five minutes to figure out how to push the real work onto someone else. How does that still count as a "five-minute solution"?
A five-minute solution would be to remove the whole part which does it, and use precalculated data,
Again a non-solution in many cases. For years, games had pre-calculated shadows and lighting. Now, the lighting is mostly done in realtime, allowing it to change in response to moving light sources, as well as moving objects casting shadows.
In order to make that fast, certain parts of it are done in assembly, or even on the video card. Far mo
Re: (Score:2)
Dynamic lights written in assembly, vs static ones, same CPU time? Excuse me?
The OS sandboxes C++ well enough. And with "moving work to someone else", it's about modifying the whole system architecture, versus optimizing a single part.
Of course the "five-minute solutions" aren't always plausible. Of course sometimes hard work at optimization, months of efforts will yield a 5000% increase in efficiency. But we're talking about one specific case: Javascript engines in web browsers. The hard work at optimizing
Yes. See Flash. (Score:3, Insightful)
it seems like web developers are now in the game development pot
Flash was the realm of web designers/web developers and is now one of the most widespread game development platforms.
Moreover, Flash's scripting language, Actionscript [wikipedia.org] is based on ECMAScript [wikipedia.org] which is in turn based on JavaScript [wikipedia.org], so Flash game developers have in fact been creating games in Javascript for some time now.
Flash Actionscript = JavaScript (although Actionscript 3.0 now resembles Java more)
So yes, Javascript is not just ready, but has in fact been one of the de facto languages for creating quality (fun and addicting!) (Flash) games in the past few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm...i think JavaScript is based in ECMA's standard aswell as AS, *not* the other way round.
GP is right, ECMAScript was standardised based on JavaScript and JScript. JavaScript was developed by Brendan Eich at Netscape, who later submitted it to ECMA for standardization. Brendan is still a driving force behind the language and the specification as he is now CTO at Mozilla and the maintainer of Mozilla's JavaScript engine.
short answer: yes (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no reason why you can't use JavaScript as the script engine for your game engine. Just like you could use lua or python.
If the question is if JavaScript + WebBrowser is ready for games? Yes, has been for quite some time. With improving javascript interpreter speed and better webbrowser functionality (i.e. "canvas") element you can even create graphic intensive games. But javascript based sudoku, tetris, sokoban, etc. games have been possible for over 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The new "Audio" object in HTML 5 is an up and coming standard that should make such problems go away. But until that time, consider using a solution like SoundManager2:
http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/ [schillmania.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Flash runs fine on my 64-bit ubuntu box.
Anyway, the audio issue for JS is probably not going to go away for a long, long time. Right now, there is very little browser support for the html 5 audio tag. Support will be coming fairly soon in Epiphany and Firefox, but it will take years before most users of those browsers have switched over to versions that supp
No, of course not! (Score:2, Funny)
As you say it's getting easier and more popular, and bandwidth is getting better, but I can't for the life of me see why people already writing browser games would try to use that to write *better* browser games... can you? You'd better ask slashdot!
Quality? Games? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we start with some quality... webpages?
You know, the type that worked reliably with just about any browser, the way it used to in Web 1.0 before web standards became a marketshare battleground?
Lately, websites have become picky about which browser you use for just this reason. The AJAX monster they're trying to get everyone to use is just too unwieldy and expensive to maintain in terms of programmer time if they actually have to support all of the browser versions. The outstanding bug count is too much even for some of the big players in this space, I dare say.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not that optimistic that games will be very well supported across browser versions to think that it will result in "quality". Instead I have a sneaky suspicion that someone will try to use some slick game that works on a couple of browsers to pull marketshare over to its cloud, but all the while dictating to people which browser they must waste their time upgrading in order to participate in the hypefest. Then, a few browser versions later, the game won't work anymore.
Blame CSS, HTML and IE (Score:5, Interesting)
HTML+CSS (current versions) is inadequate for most of what it's used for (user interfaces), as opposed to what it's meant for (documents). Add to the mix the monster that is IE, and you need javascript to make it bearable.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, IE 6 needs to die. IE 7 is tolerable but annoying, but IE 6 is really holding the web back.
Push up the web [pushuptheweb.com] has a nifty little mostly unobtrusive widget you can put on your web page to gently encourage your users to upgrade. The web designer in me likes the idea, but the security person in me doesn't want to train people to click on "upgrade your browser popups. Still, it's an interesting idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must have been on different internet tubes from me.
For me "Web 1.0" was riddled with badly written copy/paste JavaScript, IE only sites, punchable monkeys, doubleclick cookies, dancing hamster gifs and pop-ups that you couldn't block.
How can the vast progress we've made not make you optimistic?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends where you draw the Web 1.0 line. Once the browser wars were in full swing, then of course sites ended up written for IE. Before that, the web was designed to be a collaborative research tool and deep linking was not only allowed by the "content owners" but expected. You were supposed to surf from site to site following your interests. Now each website is supposed to be its own little fiefdom where jumping offsite is discouraged. Rather than linking to the vast resources offsite, the typical
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Part of the reason people use libraries like Dojo, Mootools, etc is because they solve a lot of the cross browser woes. I've been developing in dojo for over 2 years now and I rarely have browser compatibility problems, except with older IE which I'm lucky not to support.
I do think certain goals would be idiotic to even attempt outside of the Canvas element, and if you are working in the DOM, you most likely would like transparent PNG support because most games that aren't text based have some form of image
Re: (Score:2)
Are we talking about the same thing? The subject title is "Is JavaScript Ready For Creating Quality Games?" Now, I concede, that the subject or the summary doesn't really contradict what you're saying but what annoys me is you're assuming that it's talking about stupid web-based games (I may be wrong. I am just assuming from your comments on xor and png and browsers and stuff...)
Assuming for a second I am misunderstanding. I think that web-based games are about 20 years behind the current technology. XOR? F
Re: (Score:2)
This website is best viewed in Netscape Navigator 4.0
Re: (Score:2)
Bananas? Oranges?
How about we start with some quality... apples?
Define "ready" (Score:5, Interesting)
Q: Is JavaScript Ready For Creating Quality Games?
A: No, but it's happening anyway.
People build quality games out of the wierdest languages, for example Transport Tycoon Deluxe was built in assembler around 1995. I have no doubt you can write quality games in javascript. I don't think it's the easiest or best way, but it's not really my concern. If they cna make it happen, more power to them.
Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Hasn't anyone heard of "the right tool for the right job"?
Sure, you might be able to force JavaScript into displaying graphics and sound with some crazy tricks or frameworks, but why bother when you can do the same thing much easier and with many fewer browser or speed issues in Flash?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you checked which language flash is scripted with these days?
With the new javscript revision, the main difference will be the graphics library.
That is admittedly important, but canvas+dom will enable quite a few nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
"Will" being the key word there. And of course it's scripted quite a lot with Javascript, since Javascript is primarily a scripting language :^P
Not everyone has $700 (Score:2)
but why bother when you can do the same thing much easier and with many fewer browser or speed issues in Flash?
Because not every budding game developer owns a copy of Flash CS3, nor (I presume) is TheSpoom ready to donate thousands of copies of Adobe software. To write JavaScript, you don't need anything more than the Notepad that came on your existing PC.
Sure. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure. Back up a few versions... (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:2, Informative)
Interesting Turn Of Events (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Atari 2600 takes fewer man-months (Score:2)
but the games people are creating in ActionScript and JavaScript are closer to Atari 2600 games than [NES games]
Video games in the Atari 2600 era were often developed entirely by one person. NES games might have had a team of three to twenty people.
PseudoQuest! (Score:2)
I'm always happy to see stories like this go by, because it gives me a chance to shamelessly plug my own webgame. ;)
In this case, PseudoQuest is a great example of some of the crazy stuff one can do when combining existing libraries (Prototype, Scriptaculous) with custom code.
Interesting bits relevant to the JS portion of this article include: realtime PvP combat, a spiffy windowing system, drag/drop quickbar, in-game chat, easy-to-use player housing customization interface (drag/drop), and - of course - a
Why, should it? (Score:2, Funny)
Is bash ready for creating quality databases?
Are homing pigeons ready for creating quality mobile phone networks?
Is brainfuck ready for creating anything (quality)?
Why not stick with flash? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even as a huge fan of AJAX web applications and javascript libraries, I don't understand why'd you'd pick javscript over flash for developing anything any more complex than tetris.
Anything javascript can do, flash can do better and faster. And the number of flash-capable browsers out there is almost as high as the number of javascript-capable browsers. Flash gives you far, far better image handling capabilities, and more.
Other than the "haha, I did X on a platform that isn't really meant for it" factor, why would any serious game developer choose the javascript-in-a-browser platform?
Re: (Score:2)
The keyword, however, is "quality" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of flash-based games is quite limited; but just because java script can do most of what flash can do doesn't mean that it's ready to do quality games.
Re:The keyword, however, is "quality" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But SVG *is* XML-based and can be manipulated as a DOM. We're really 2/3rds of the way there in terms of manipulating it with Javascript. And if we get that, all we have to do is prise streaming video away from FLASH, and we're from FLASH at last!
Re:The keyword, however, is "quality" (Score:5, Insightful)
Safari, Opera and Firefox already have support for embedded videos thru HTML 5. So we're already there.
All I want for christmas is YouTube, DAP- and game-reviewing sites to start using it instead of flash. Probably won't happen until Microsoft has managed to drag their balls out of their ass and manage to pull IE8 out at the same time (and way ..)
If only atleast Google had some balls big enough to say "oh well, YouTube requires a decent browser!", or they could just check with JavaScript if the browser is new enough to have HTML5 video support and fall back on Flash if it's not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The tag spec just says it'll load a video, but doesn't specify what kind of video. Safari does quicktime and installed codecs. Firefox and Opera I believe do OGG Vorbis/Theora. If IE added it I would guess they'd do WMV.
The video tag is not done yet. So its not going to get much use.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I assumed all of them would support whatever codecs you had installed? If Firefox and Opera don't that suck.
I see no problem with using mixed video codecs for the videos as long as every browser support the codecs you have installed. My Quicktime can probably play most stuff anyway, and obviously my VLC/mplayer classic would to if I had ran Windows, or mplayer in BSD or whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the reasons flash is so popular amongst the folks embedding video in sites is that its become a platform for video thats extremely common on the web. It has a standard format.
Until the video tag spec has a viable video format to go with it, its meaningless. It just means we would use a video tag instead of embed/object/whatever to add the video to the site.
If FireFox and
Re: (Score:2)
They can't be embedded in a standard way not using quicktime/wmp though can they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.. and h264 got better video quality and more peoples videos are probably already in h264 so why use theora? Except it's free... But that don't guarantee success in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how many open source options there are. I know Theora isn't the best codec that can be used, but if you are producing a standard, it just seems like a smarter idea to go with something that everyone basically has equal access to.
And
Re: (Score:2)
Browser no but won't most OSes have support for it? The free ones fail? What is more likely, Theora becoming a standard or people trying to get h264 for free (but can't they already? Can't VLC and mplayer play h264?)
I to believe a free format would be better, but if almost no-one use said free format and it's a definite fail that doesn't help. Such as trying to make a music store which only sell OGG although only just a few premium players play them.
I'd be ok with theora to, and a standard / getting rid of
Re: (Score:2)
Embedded video isn't enough to supplant Flash's video compositing capabilities.... HTML 5 won't let you do a video mix, manipulate the video during playback, add hostpots of interactivity to the video or anything else to do with video other than play it, pause it, ff and rw.
Flash can not be beat by any current technology in this respect (for online distribution) and Silverlight which is the closest is still years behind.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to do anything of that anyway so .. If they really want to add ads I guess they can still add them into the actual video file, or make clickable layers with CSS and javascript and so on.
In fact I don't give a shit about ads and clickable areas in videos, I just want to watch videos.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact I don't give a shit about ads and clickable areas in videos, I just want to watch videos.
Well, that settles it!
IE is still the supermajority browser (Score:2)
But SVG *is* XML-based
Which means jack droppings if the web browser on the supermajority of your audience's computers doesn't understand the semantics behind the DTD. Or were you thinking of translating SVG on the server side, in much the same way that a lot of web sites to turn random XML into XHTML?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is little work in making Javascript be to SVG what Action Script is to FLASH.
There's still a lot of work. The SWF player is installed on PCs before people buy them, unlike the SVG player. SWF supports audio; SVG does not, and no web browser that I'm aware of supports SMIL.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I think it would still be useful to use SVG. If your users have a choice between downloading your crappy little game, and downloading Firefox, I think Firefox would be the easier pill to swallow.
Then again, I'm thinking like a paranoid admin. I have no idea what typical users would do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I assumed the problem with using javascript was the inability to manipulate images at the bit level with relative ease. People have made some successful projects using the canvas object to handle their 'blitting,' but do all browsers even support it (shifting eyes at IE)?
Another (rather unrelated) issue would be the lack of a mature way to communicate between server and client - cheaply that is. If someone is going to make their own browser based graphic mud, that means they are going to have to write thei
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect who the fuck cares what IE supports or not? Start using it anyway and eventually people will move away from the inferior product which most people use. If you never give them a reason why would they switch?
"Firefox and Opera has better standards support!"
"But all pages I want to visit already works in IE! So why should I switch?"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not as much of a fanboy as I'm a hateboy of one single browser (or well, make that two, Safari is quite crappy to.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not even close to being identical. The syntax is very similar, in the way that JavaScript syntax is similar to C -- but the languages are quite different.
For example: AS is statically-typed, JS isn't. JS is prototypal inheritance, and I assume AS isn't (how could it be that and statically-typed?)
Despite some of the recent efforts to turn javascript into some kind of actionscript, by adding class keywords and the like, they really aren't that similar. While I haven't used actionscript, from what I u
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, crap. I have been using too damn many forums. CURSE YOU, bbCODE!
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.