
...buuuuuuut I'm sure I'm not the only one not to get the whole HTML5 thing. I mean, why would I want to use a cobbled together piece of shite like javascript to write something meaningful? loosely typed? no true OO? urgh, no ta. It would be like writing Doom3 in Cobol.
Also, that website/game had just bumped all my fans on full power... html5 performance really does take the biscuit and there's *far* better solutions out there. And this is a medium power modern pc.
Sorry, rant over, the game is a very impressive tech demo though ;o)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:37, Reply)

I think the tech will improve over time though, and maybe better scripting solutions than js will surface.... maybe
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:46, Reply)

A chap I used to work with often told me I should learn LISP, said I'd find it very Zen. I think I know what he means now.
Javascript isn't meant to be object oriented, but it helps if you a) write in a semi object-oriented way and b) forget anything you ever knew about C++, Java, Python...
(Saying that, I'm stuck in hell today, debugging and extending some JS I wrote 6 months ago, it may as well have been written by a gibbon using just his left elbow)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:46, Reply)

...that may explain quite a lot
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:50, Reply)

For those exact reasons, lack of encapsulation means it's a maintenance clusterfuck. Write once, run away and try and forget it Many.
Such a shame browsers don't have a propah langwidge
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:14, Reply)

and because it's nice to do things well
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:16, Reply)

It doesn't make any real difference to your maintenance. Once you need to do anything complex in the closure, you're better of splitting it out into a proper function anyway.
JavaScript can be used well, of course it can; but it's a lot like C or C++: it takes a lot of discipline to use well. And the end result will still perform like a dog's breakfast.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:28, Reply)

They let you nest all kinds of code, callback and events, yet still get back out to a class based scope for sanity/maintainability.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:35, Reply)

(And sensibly, not doing crazily complicated stuff.)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:38, Reply)

The trick to maintainability is picking the right way. Hindsight's always a bit of a bugger here...
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:23, Reply)

Not necessarily any single *right* way.
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 1:42, Reply)

But thought i was good. Now i'm ok and think i can be better. Closures, bind, call, collections, signals, they all wrap each other beautifully now, where before i was trying all kinds of things with classes, prototypes and basically creating an unmaintainable mess.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:33, Reply)

then it's playable by most people who can load it in a browser
the language might have flaws but the compensation is you can reach a wide audience.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:49, Reply)

but the tech is fundamentally flawed IMO - it's a step backwards not forwards. That's not to say it won't catch up, I'm sure it will (and this demo shows it's getting much better).
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:51, Reply)

All the things it can do could be done with Flash. They will not notice much difference.
For a developer, it makes coding easier / cheaper.
Any commercial website which goes for a 'html5 aesthetic' to look modern is likely to be the equivalent of a site ten years ago with a Flash splash page. Sites have evolved away from design-for-designs-sake, as it usually annoys people.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:40, Reply)

Shame it's not actually supported on everything. Not sure why it doesn't work on my PC, and really can't be bothered to work it out.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:29, Reply)

or is it an experimental thing which may be included in the future?
If Microsoft don't support it, then it is pretty useless in commercial web design (though I guess gamers are going to be more willing to be told to use a different browser).
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:03, Reply)

And it's not really part of HTML5 (although that's a term that's come to mean a lot more than just the actual HTML), it's a non-standard context you can request from a canvas element. But there is already a decent consensus about it... except from Microsoft.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:16, Reply)

really great thing about HTML5 is the specification on error handling, which should hopefully mean that stuff looks the same in all browsers, no matter how it is coded.
Most of the "HTML5 demos" are more just people enjoying pushing something to its limits.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:30, Reply)

OpenGL specifies how things must look. This sounds great, but in practice it isn't for anything high performance, because if the hardware doesn't do what you want, then you fall back on a software pipeline that's very slow compared to hardware.
So yes, you get the same result... but at a radically slower speed.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:46, Reply)

I can write a well featured application that can change remote data in real time and work on almost anyone's computer immediately.
Try doing the same with Java or C++.
It's not perfect, but it's getting better all the time, due to better engines and a constantly improving spec. Harmony addresses a number of OO grumbles, but I quite like being freed from the shackles of typing and full OO.
The browser is pretty much the OS now.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:07, Reply)

I don't want to be freed from strong typing. It's the path to madness! (It eliminates a whole class of things you can do in typed languages to protect yourself against unexpected things being passed to functions, etc.)
(Implicit typing I'm fine with, but I still like it strong.)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:48, Reply)