Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox • Hacker News Board

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#111

Post by stoptalkingshit » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 1:22 AM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #102

stoptalkingshit wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all hardware setups, whereas the browser is a very poorly designed portability layer (viewed in this way). It makes me physically angry how badly the browser vendors have dropped the ball here. It was obvious years ago that things were going this way, but instead of developing a proper application-development standard they just shoved everything into HTML. Every time I hear Mozilla talking about "innovation…

> The best that can be said is you have been good at marketing the whole thing by constantly pretending that it's "just Javascript" etc, when the end result is completely static (i.e. not Javascript). asm.js executes according to the ECMA-262 semantics, which are the full dynamic semantics of JavaScript.

What GALL you have to be so willfully dishonest. asm.js is statically typed and has only the most coincidental relationship to Javascript. Just as if I take pointers out of C it is no longer C. What's funny is that you are exhibiting EXACTLY the "nothing to see here" behavior I just described by invoking some completely nominal relationship between Javascript and asm.js. And it is exactly this "nothing to see here" behavior that emphasizes how deep down the web people know they are simply reacting to competitors to retain market share.

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#112

Post by pcwalton » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 1:27 AM UTC

johnbm wrote: post #110

pcwalton wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least on Windows there's a serious effort to give me as much of the machine's power as possible. What is asm.js (and WebGL, for that matter) if not that?

WebGL is a deliberately limited but secure sandbox based on a spec for mobile devices that is two major releases out of date and makes an Xbox 360 look like science fiction. Asm.js is an enormous hack where we limit the computational expressiveness of performance critical code by the semantics and standard library of a language notoriously shit at it.

> WebGL is a deliberately limited but secure sandbox based on a spec for mobile devices that is two major releases out of date and makes an Xbox 360 look like science fiction.

Unreal Engine 4 is a counterexample.

> Asm.js is an enormous hack where we limit the computational expressiveness of performance critical code by the semantics and standard library of a language notoriously shit at it.

How is it limited?

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#113

Post by taeric » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 1:54 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #97

taeric wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how a browser based distribution has the potential to be better as far as security. I don't think it is foregone it would be worse, mind. What does a browser by in terms of added security? Encrypted connections did not spring in to being with ssl. And, doing a secured stateful connection seems easier/better than the stateless messages method of traditional http applications.

Please re-read. Browsers don't have exemplary security, but, what they have can be slightly better than simple code signing. Also, I say it's entirely possible that the other platforms to leapfrog them. The problem with current sandboxes for native code, is that they disarm the participants while empowering malicious code.

I am rereading. I am also asking for specific examples of how a browser has potentially better security than a custom application. Because, I just don't see it.

Unless you are trying to say that something in a limited sandbox of a browser has limited capability outside of said sandbox. But... how is that not just as true of any other sandbox approach.

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#114

Post by taeric » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 2:01 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #95

taeric wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see it. The web does not have any better discoverability than any store front that proceeded it. What it has is a virtually free cost of entry. Take the game 2048 that made headlines here. I didn't discover it because of some intrinsic discovery mechanism of the web any more than if I was to just keep watching the games page on amazon. No, I found it because someone could pop it on github and share with…

The web does not have any better discoverability than any store front that proceeded it. You're kidding, right? (Maybe not old enough to remember the world pre-Google?)

I'm not kidding. I am definitely old enough to remember the world pre google. I am also old enough that my kids can discover a crapton of stuff walking the isles of walmart.

Even now, I am more likely to discover a good game walking down the wall of gamespot than I am surfing the web. If I really want some discoverability, I go for magazines or similar digital fare nowdays.

Seriously, when was the last time you used google to find a game. Because, I don't think I have ever even heard of someone doing this. What I have done is browsed the lucasarts website hoping for news of upcoming releases. Or pulled up arstechnica's game section to see what is current.

Or, more recently, subscribed to humble bundle to see what they have to offer.

I am not (and can not) claim that the internet has not helped find some games I otherwise would not have found. I assert that this is because it hooked up some developers with a distribution mechanism they did not have before.

And yet, even as I type that I know how bloody stupid it is. I am also old enough to remember dialing in to a BBS in Texas, as they were the closest I could find to download Doom, Jill of the Jungle, Commander Keen... It is not like there were no methods to get games created and distributed pre google.

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#115

Post by taeric » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 2:04 AM UTC

azakai wrote: post #107

taeric wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said elsewhere, I only take this if you are saying "users" and meaning "developers." I can see the point, but I see access to the tools as way more valuable than this. And with the tools, I'm curious just how many more "users" developers will truly be able to aim for. One off demos not withstanding.

No, I meant users: You ship your game on the web, it reaches its users - the people playing it - directly. That's the benefit of the web. I agree tools are important too, but the main benefit of the web is it is runs everywhere, and no one controls it.

How many games are there that run from links off the web that are actually making money? (Not being an ass. I seriously want to know if there are any numbers on this.)

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#116

Post by nnethercote » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 2:37 AM UTC

Pacabel wrote: post #74

pvnick wrote: post #11

This is very exciting. I've had the chance to meet Brendan Eich a couple of times at Moz conferences, and he never fails to strike me as a visionary and a super nice guy. Between the asm.js stuff and Rust (which I actually had the privilege of witnessing the much-anticipated unveilling several years ago. Honestly I thought it was an overly-ambitious fools errand but that's why I'm not cto of mozilla), he really seems…

From what I can see, Mozilla is generally going in a direction that's alienating existing users, without necessarily bringing in any new ones. For example, it's widely understood today that Firefox has a much smaller share of the market now than it did a few years ago. Most measures I've seen show a drop from somewhere in the mid 30%'s down to under 20% today. Proportionally fewer Firefox users means less influence o…

Oh look! Pacabel's written down his/her "Mozilla is crap" laundry-list post again. It's getting a bit tired, Pacabel.

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#117

Post by nnethercote » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 2:40 AM UTC

soapdog wrote: post #87

Pacabel wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can see, Mozilla is generally going in a direction that's alienating existing users, without necessarily bringing in any new ones. For example, it's widely understood today that Firefox has a much smaller share of the market now than it did a few years ago. Most measures I've seen show a drop from somewhere in the mid 30%'s down to under 20% today. Proportionally fewer Firefox users means less influence o…

Firefox OS has been launched in 16 countries. You may not be on an emerging market but people on most of these countries are enjoying what affordable smartphones can give them. In Venezuela alone Firefox OS already has a larger marketshare than Windows Phone. Firefox OS went from 0 to 16 countries, 4 hardware manufacturers and 4 global telecoms in 2 years. And it did that while being open, accepting contribution, enc…

Well said. Anyone who thinks Firefox OS is going nowhere obviously wasn't paying attention to Mobile World Congress 2013 and 2014.

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#118

Post by bzbarsky » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 3:19 AM UTC

bronxbomber92 wrote: post #85

aluhut wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see with my parents and their peer group I've been supporting for years why the numbers for market share may also be misleading. I installed Firefox on all of their computers, taking favorites from IE. They all use Chrome today. You know why? They don't know. It was just there. Suddenly. Already set as preferred browser application. Every time I come by, I uninstall it. Every time I come back, it's there again. Ins…

I really have no idea what point this post is trying to make. I see anti IE (installing FF over IE), anti Chrome ("crapware") and anti FF ("feature growth within FF) sentiments, but no tie-together logic. Do you have a conclusive point you're trying to get across?

I think aluhut's point is that at various points in time Chrome has come bundled with various other software on Windows, often enough as an opt-out install, not an opt-in. Needless to say, Google has spent a fair amount of money on those sorts of deals. This is an effective, if sleazy, way of gaining market share.

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#119

Post by ferongr » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 3:42 AM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #112

johnbm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebGL is a deliberately limited but secure sandbox based on a spec for mobile devices that is two major releases out of date and makes an Xbox 360 look like science fiction. Asm.js is an enormous hack where we limit the computational expressiveness of performance critical code by the semantics and standard library of a language notoriously shit at it.

> WebGL is a deliberately limited but secure sandbox based on a spec for mobile devices that is two major releases out of date and makes an Xbox 360 look like science fiction. Unreal Engine 4 is a counterexample. > Asm.js is an enormous hack where we limit the computational expressiveness of performance critical code by the semantics and standard library of a language notoriously shit at it. How is it limited?

To be honest, the video in TFA looks like something out of a 2009 game, it's not particularly impressive. And I guess it'll probably be a rolling demo, not having the requirements of a complete game that also has to handle a bunch of computationally expensive stuff like collisions, game logic etc.

Re: Mozilla and Epic Preview Unreal Engine 4 Running in Firefox

#120

Post by pcwalton » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 3:47 AM UTC

stoptalkingshit wrote: post #111

pcwalton wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best that can be said is you have been good at marketing the whole thing by constantly pretending that it's "just Javascript" etc, when the end result is completely static (i.e. not Javascript). asm.js executes according to the ECMA-262 semantics, which are the full dynamic semantics of JavaScript.

What GALL you have to be so willfully dishonest. asm.js is statically typed and has only the most coincidental relationship to Javascript. Just as if I take pointers out of C it is no longer C. What's funny is that you are exhibiting EXACTLY the "nothing to see here" behavior I just described by invoking some completely nominal relationship between Javascript and asm.js. And it is exactly this "nothing to see here" b…

If you wrote a C compiler that had special optimizations for a subset of C without pointers, then it would still be a C compiler, and the subset that it optimized for would still be C. (In fact, this is exactly the approach taken with languages like GLSL 1.0, although they added some extensions to make it not C anymore.)