71–80 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your jungle.horse "more info" panel: > Word of warning: while I'm not a vampire, I may or may not be a night owl. That totally sounds absolutely non-suspicious... Also, you may or may not be having a HN-driven traffic spike.
Oh no, I've been outed. ;p
I'm reminded of this: https://youtu.be/pAEAbqrE5Zw Does it represent a lot of work by skilled technicians? Undoubtedly. Is it interesting in it's own right? Frankly I think not. The surrounding question of the socialization of the internet is interesting, to be sure, but at the end of the day these are just animated emojis...
This is really slick, and I'm going to investigate using it for the Donald Trump animation on jungle.horse. The license [1] doesn't look to be as encumbered as some of Facebook's other open source licenses, but does include a clause I found to be strange: > provided Your Software does not consist solely of the Software So if I'm reading this correctly, it means only Facebook can redistribute this software? Wat. [1] h…
Presumably if you added a unique feature it might not "consist solely of the Software". But that clause isn't the troublesome one -- "modify the Software for your own internal use" makes it crystal clear that this is absolutely not Open Source.
Hey, everyone! I'm one of the developers at Facebook who worked on this library since its conception! Really excited to be able to share this library today! I'll be checking up here periodically and can help answer any technical questions that you have!
Thanks.
I'm reminded of this: https://youtu.be/pAEAbqrE5Zw Does it represent a lot of work by skilled technicians? Undoubtedly. Is it interesting in it's own right? Frankly I think not. The surrounding question of the socialization of the internet is interesting, to be sure, but at the end of the day these are just animated emojis...
> Does it represent a lot of work by skilled technicians? Undoubtedly. Is it interesting in it's own right? Frankly I think not. You don't think having an easy way to create high quality animations for any purpose that work on multiple platforms is interesting...? You might not find the current application of it interesting but that's like saying React isn't interesting because someone used it to make another Flappy…
It would be more if they'd have created an extension to the SVG standard that they'd just parse out via JS. Then it'd just be a polyfill, and could easily be integrated natively in the future, and gain support on other platforms, too.
This will change the world for a few months, modifying the standard would change it for years.
I was totally down with this - a tight, efficient vector graphics format with After Effects integration, super - up until the point they said these animations were JSON files. Huh? Didn't I just read a whole blog post saying that one of their requirements was fast loading from disk, small bandwidth usage, etc? And that's what justified creating an entirely new image format from scratch, not something the internet is…
Also I think you have to pick something human readable here. One of the great things about SVG is that it's in XML so you can read it, tweak it, etc. It's super handy when you want to make small changes that only affect the image. So I see using JSON as pretty handy.
Don't forget there are many types of formats out there that have 2 types: a binary and human readable type. One used typically during debugging and one used for optimal over-the-wire transport. I don't see why this couldn't be possible at a later time.
Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. Over-optimizing is a thing. For a one time download I don't see the handfuls of milliseconds you're saving mattering. In either case of receiving a binary or JSON you will store it in an optimal format on the device...
Hey, everyone! I'm one of the developers at Facebook who worked on this library since its conception! Really excited to be able to share this library today! I'll be checking up here periodically and can help answer any technical questions that you have!
Why does the software license [1] include the following clause: > provided Your Software does not consist solely of the Software Why didn't you guys choose MIT or BSD? It feels like the custom Facebook license is close to the intent of these, but it has that mysterious gotcha. In any case, thanks for the software! It looks really slick, and I definitely have a use case for using it to replace the sprite sheet I used…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does it represent a lot of work by skilled technicians? Undoubtedly. Is it interesting in it's own right? Frankly I think not. You don't think having an easy way to create high quality animations for any purpose that work on multiple platforms is interesting...? You might not find the current application of it interesting but that's like saying React isn't interesting because someone used it to make another Flappy…
But react isn't interesting because they could have just modified custom elements via a polyfill and javascript extension. It would work mostly natively on newer browsers. Keyframes is just after effects animation in HTML5, a feature that could be implemented more natively using svg and a solution similar to this for older browsers. Facebook seems to want to dominate with single-use, clunky libaries.
Snark aside, if you have a native mobile app it is a much, much nicer experience to have native animations integrated rather than trying to mash an HTML view into the app just for some animations.
*Because programmers are the worst kind of pedants: Yes I know sometimes you can't afford to write native apps, sometimes a partial solution is better than no solution, etc. Just don't lie and tell me a web app is as good as (or better than) a native app, or that Cordova is a great way to write mobile apps. Those are compromises. Sometimes you make compromises to get shit done. It doesn't magically transform a compromise into an ideal solution.
I was totally down with this - a tight, efficient vector graphics format with After Effects integration, super - up until the point they said these animations were JSON files. Huh? Didn't I just read a whole blog post saying that one of their requirements was fast loading from disk, small bandwidth usage, etc? And that's what justified creating an entirely new image format from scratch, not something the internet is…
Fields are serialized to tag numbers instead of field names in the binary format, so it's easy to rename fields. This also saves a ton of space versus JSON.
Proto "messages", analagous to structs in other languages, are typesafe, negating the need for a separate schema definition language. They support optional and sum types too.
So many languages have great protobuf libraries available. (I'm hoping one becomes available for Rust soon--as well as gRPC.) It would be amazing if the browser vendors would come together and standardize it as a first class browser serializarion format. It'd save so much bandwidth to emit protos instead of JSON.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not misreading it. The license says we cannot fork the software. That's not open source.
If I understand right, you can fork it and even redistribute it, as long as your software isn't a blatant plagiarism of this repo. So technically, taking this library and putting it together with some other library yielding some meaningful application is enough to satisfy that clause.