Flash is obviously dead/dying, but I still want to be able to write online games (complete with vector animations and all). I've been studying Javascript, SVG, and some neat stuff with HTML 5. However, I've found very little in terms of a platform to tie it all together. What do you recommend?
Desired features:
* Free as in beer
* Helps with image/sound resource loading
* Helps control animation in a standard way
Box2D comes surprisingly close except for the resource loading. But it would be pretty hacky to have all screens as 2d physics environments.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 22:45
Java applets
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 22:52
If you want games playable on the web, use Java applets. Otherwise, you should stick to a platform that doesn't use the web such as the Android platform or any modern Unix platform.
Serious, Java applets? That shit comes disabled by default on Chrome for a reason. I suppose it would at least provide some source obfuscation which would be nice. But on the other hand, its not 2001. Who the hell uses Java applets for anything?
/g/ was recommending Adobe Animate, which was promising except it looks like a SaaS and that is obviously a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not really interested in what language you think games should be written in (though feel free to do that anyway). What I'm trying to find is a platform for client side resource/scene management that will run in a browser without changing any settings, which would mean Javascript.
>>13
That's the current state. A lot of half-baked projects. You have to make the right guess or wait until something convincing appears.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 23:31
>>5
I've mainly used Java applets for a few games, youtube download sites and work applets for my job.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 23:32
aimind.js
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 23:34
>>13,17
Just pick one and use it. When you get experience and find the weaknesses your tools, you'll be in a better position to make more qualified decisions later on.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 23:34
[Ask HN]
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 23:42
>>3 you should stick to a platform that doesn't use the web such as the Android platform or any modern Unix platform.
WUT?
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 23:47
>>22 that has already been established as a troll post
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 23:50
>>22
You can make a programming platform out of web technologies like HTML, WebGL etc. I would normally recommend against doing that if it can be helped. I would recommend something like the Android, or a Unix based platform such as Irrlicht, Torque Game Engine, Crystal Space, LÖVE, Sphere RPG Engine, Ethanon...
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-22 23:57
Online games are stupid as fuck and a time waster.
I'll stick with Dwarf Forests (it is also intellectually challenging and therefore not a time waster as it increases your IQ)
how does mining with ascii dorfs increase your IQ?
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 0:11
>>27
The habit of solving new problems increases your IQ. The Dwarf Fortress game has many problems requiring attention so there will be many opportunities to solve them.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 0:45
dorfs are cute
cute enough to rape
oh yeah
dorf rape tiem
Things went downhill rather quickly once Adobe bought Macromedia. One of the things I've planned to write was an open-source efficient Flash replacement. (After getting a decompiler working, it doesn't seem that hard...)
>>31 4chan BBS - Programming nerd
Back to /sp/, please.
>>32
Gnash = GNU, and we all know what that means: bloaty, overengineered software full of dependencies and a nightmare to get working on Windows systems.
From the Wikipedia page: The goal of the Gnash developers is to be as compatible as possible with the proprietary player [...] However, Gnash offers some special features not available in the Adobe player, such as the possibility to extend the ActionScript classes via shared libraries
What the bloody hell are you fucking idiots doing wasting effort on implementing functionality that doesn't matter a gnat's ass if your goal "is to be as compatible as possible with the proprietary player"!? Focus on getting the core working first.
I just had a glance at the Gnash source code, and it is huge -- 4MB compressed! configure itself is 1.5MB uncompressed, and the rest of the source is spread over several dozen files in around a dozen subdirectories. The majority of the files have more content being the huge banner comment at the top than actual code.
Yuck.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 5:27
Cudder why don't you make like a tree and kill yourself
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 5:49
>>35
What's even more hilarious is that GNU sync is ~80 lines long.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 8:01
>>33
GNU is designed for its own sake, not for Windows. Its foremost philosophy is to be useful for anybody. If it performs better for a given metric, that's a bonus, not a main goal.
>>35
Do you think the Adobe code base is any lighter? I'd doubt it. Configure is terrible because it solves a very tricky problem of building on any Unix system. If you only had to work with GNU, it'd be much lighter. Why do you bitch about comments when it has no bearing on the final work? It's no longer 1980, we can afford the disk space for commentary art.
>>38
Maybe Adobe's codebase is slightly bigger but the latest version, which has a lot more features that Gnash doesn't have, probably isn't that much bigger than that of Gnash. Configure is only solving a problem that they created in the first place; a script that checks for strcmp is just plain stupid, and whoever thinks they can compile a relatively large C program on a system missing most of its standard library deserves to be ridiculed.
Why do you bitch about comments when it has no bearing on the final work? It's no longer 1980, we can afford the disk space for commentary art.
Waste is waste no matter what. Whoever is reading or writing those files still has to scroll through that rubbish every time they open them. A one-line "This file from Gnash is licensed under the GNU GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html" is enough.
>>39
Read that a long time ago and I see no relevance to this topic.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 8:39
>>40
It is relevant, because the need for ./configure and the flashplayer itself arises out of worse-is-better nature of Unix and C.
The deficient nature of C/C++ requires inventing ActionScript/Perl/PHP/JS/Lua to do something remotely portable.
>>41
Are you implying that Lisp can function as the OS language on a modern machine?
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 9:21
>>43
Yes. Although for low level code, you will have to use something like regions, instead of full-blown GC. Also, hardware level type dispatch wont hurt, so no type declarations would be required for fixnum code.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 9:26
>>44
nice dubs broski
ebin
ebin for da win
LLLLLEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLL
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-23 10:02
>>44
As interesting as that is, nobody has bothered in implementing a full featured Lisp OS on a modern machine. There have been minimal implementations over the years and nothing substantial. In order to make things easier, it may help to program to a fixed hardware architecture such as a specific notebook computer or those low cost computer on a board.