/prog/ - Dune II in JavaScript

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:48

http://play-dune.com/

So 2012 is the 1992 of JavaScript?

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:53

The software they used is https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki

so all software is going to be translated to JavaScript.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:54

JavaScript can do what Flash did ten years ago except slower.

WE ARE TRULY LIVING IN THE WEB APP AGE

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:54

http://tss.asenheim.org/

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 18:00

>>3
It's actually faster, less bloated and much more surprise!!

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 18:04

>>3
As much as I hate JavaScript, there's no way you can make JS+SVG/Canvas/WebGL run slower on a modern browser than the fastest Flash ever did.

Oh, and in order for Flash to run acceptably, you need a half-decent coder who can read a bit of documentation instead of copy-pasting crap, which is a losing strategy (as a concrete example, of the big sites for video playing only YouTube gets it even remotely right).

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:06

>>6
Flash movies and games on Newgrounds worked fine for me in the late 90s.
Equivalent canvas games and movies take up all my CPU cycles and run slow as shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:16

What house do/did you favour.

House Ordos for me.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:17

>>7
I'd need more info, but there's probably something wrong with your platform. Those demos with a thousand moving fishes run at 60fps for me using less than 1% CPU. I haven't seen a lot of Flash-style vector stuff though, maybe that's slower.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:20

DBIx::Class + DBD::SQLite or DBD::DBM

There is DBD::CSV if you really want plain text, but please don't.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:33

C -> LLVM -> JS -> ??? -> Native
WEB ENTERPRISE QUALITY
So 2012 is the 1992 of JavaScript?
Well, maybe 1996, but yeah, you get the point.
They really outsmarted Moore's law with JS.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:35

>>8
Ordos. I love idea subverting units against it's owner.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:52

>>11
Actually, on strong machines JavaScript gives you (very) early 2000s performance.

However if you're using high level stuff to do the heavy lifting (drawing and sound/music playback), it starts to look a whole lot better (probably 2006 or 2007 even).

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:55

>>7
Flash movies and games on Newgrounds worked fine for me in the late 90s.
You remember this much better than what it was. It was a 480x360 window, it animated at 12fps, and it slowed down the moment there was a transparent sprite shown.

You might also think modern browsers are very bloated and slow; try grabbing one from 10 years ago and loading a modern webpage and see what happens.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:19

>>14
I remember C64 doing realtime rayracing. So what?

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:27

>>15
And JS does it too: http://jupiter909.com/mark/jsrt.html

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:42

>>14
Nope, it was fine for me. In fact, my current computer is pretty old, but it runs those old Flash movies flawlessly. An equivalent Canvas animation hangs on me and makes my computer fan run so loud that my neighbors complain about the noise.

The only thing that works better with Canvas is 3D, presumably due to WebGL.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 5:00

Javascript is so fucking shitty that they had to write a compiler to an intermediate virtual machine and a translator from the said machine to javashit so that they could write the game in C++ and compile it with this humongous chain of crutches to play it in a ``browser''. It turns out writing a game and a compiler in C++ is preferable to touching this javascript yourself. Language has to be really, really, really shitty to make people prefer C++ over it.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 7:53

>>18
Actually, game was decompiled using IDA, which produces C/C++ output. Author mentions, that these old DOS interrupt hacks were really hard to emulate in JS, which has no multithreading.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 8:04

>>19
Oh, I see. That's why it sucks so much. I can't believe I have played this game when I was a kid: controls are so clumsy it is irritating. There is another C++ project, FreeDune if I remember correctly, that fixes most of the issues with controls. I wonder if it can be compiled to JS (but am too lazy to try it myself).

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 10:38

>>20
Your mom sucks so much. Go compare Mario Bros to Crysis 3.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:22

>>2
Run code in languages like Python as well, by compiling CPython from C to JavaScript and interpreting code in that on the web
*shudder*

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:40

>>22
(defvar *shudder* "use sage ``faggot'' ")

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:59

>>22
I know, it's hard to believe anyone would choose CPython over Stackless or PyPy anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 14:16

I agree with Zed Shaw: it's a virtual machine, give us bytecode instead of locking us into JavaScript.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 14:34

>>25
http://play-dune.com/js/opendune.js
l[sd+10]=e&255;e>>=8;l[sd+11]=e&255;e=rd+24|0;l[sd+12]=e&255;e>>=8;l[sd+13]=e&255;e>>=8;
You mean to tell me you'd rather have a bytecode than a bunch of code like this to mimic 8-bit arithmetic?

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 18:04

>>26
|0 QUALITY

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 19:27

>>26
Oh god. How do people even figure that stuff out? How do you wrap your ahead around implementing that?

Name: House Anus 2012-12-21 1:11

FOR THE SUSSMAN!

Name: Ihavedreams 2012-12-21 2:45

>>1
NO. This is due because javascript is running in the web browser and not natively. The performance shouldn't be compared to native implementation of other languages.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 2:46

>>30
*This is because

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 4:51

This would have been done better in Symta.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 9:12

>>30
So Java's performance shouldn't be compared to other native language implementations because it runs on the JVM?

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 12:36

>>33
Javascript's objective is completely different to say something like c or python. So I think the comparison in the OP is unfair.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 14:17

>>34
Javascript's objective is completely different to say something like c or python.
That makes it fair. It just proves we shouldn't be using JavaScript for this shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 17:07

>>28
Since when is masking and shifting hard to understand? Are you from /g/ or something?

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 8:24

>>4
>Nocturnal Illusions
>Paradise Heights 2
>Fatal Relations
>True Love
My_nigga.txt

I couldn't get Three Sister's story to work before, so I'll have to try that.

I'll also have to suggest to them Time Stripper Mako.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 18:14

>>35

k, i got you idea. you want c compiler built in every browser, sites would add c source files to their web pages, your browser would download those files, compile them and use to draw drop down menus etc stuff

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 18:25

>>34
oh, i forgot to add, and python's purpose is completely different than c as well. also python may be slower than js, i wonder how bad would it work if you somehow run it with browser as its interpreter

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 12:25

>>25
Bytecode is not the answer.
http://www.2ality.com/2012/01/bytecode-myth.html

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 13:28

>>40
Interesting reading. However, I disagree with him. Most of the disadvantages are more political than technical. If some consortium wrote a standard bytecode it would probably suck, but it would still have the same advantages people have been arguing for. Consider how many people use x86.
Source code is huge and already obfuscated (he mentions minification) and it's a poor language to begin with. People are compiling to JavaScript in crazy ways and that's never going to be as fast or flexible as a bytecode.
I would much rather have a poorly-designed bytecode (or even a subset of one, if there are compatibility issues) than a poorly-designed high-level language. At least with the latter I can write programs in a language I'm comfortable with, and still generate small/performant programs.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 14:49

At least with the latter I can write Boos in a language I'm comfortable with, and still generate small/performant Boos.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 15:27

>>40
First, it shows that bytecode has several disadvantages. Second, it explains that source code is not as bad a solution as it seems. Third, JavaScript is arguably the best language ever which everyone should be using anyway, so there is no point in making other languages compile to the same bytecode.

Dune II in JavaScript

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:48

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:53

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:54

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:54

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 18:00

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 18:04

7 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:06

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:16

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:17

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:20

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:33

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:35

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:52

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:55

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:19

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:27

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:42

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 5:00

19 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 7:53

20 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 8:04

21 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 10:38

22 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:22

23 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:40

24 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:59

25 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 14:16

26 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 14:34

27 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 18:04

28 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 19:27

29 Name: House Anus 2012-12-21 1:11

30 Name: Ihavedreams 2012-12-21 2:45

31 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 2:46

32 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 4:51

33 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 9:12

34 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 12:36

35 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 14:17

36 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 17:07

37 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 8:24

38 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 18:14

39 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 18:25

40 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 12:25

41 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 13:28

42 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 14:49

43 Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 15:27

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:48

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:53

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:54

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 17:54

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 18:00

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 18:04

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:06

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:16

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:17

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:20

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:33

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:52

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 19:55

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:19

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:27

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-19 20:42

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 5:00

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 7:53

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 8:04

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 10:38

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:22

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:40

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 12:59

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 14:16

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 14:34

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 18:04

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-20 19:27

Name: House Anus 2012-12-21 1:11

Name: Ihavedreams 2012-12-21 2:45

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 2:46

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 4:51

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 9:12

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 12:36

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 14:17

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-21 17:07

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 8:24

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 18:14

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-22 18:25

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 12:25

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 13:28

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 14:49

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-23 15:27