 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4a1ee0ca$1@news.povray.org...
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>
> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
That's nothing. What's scary is this:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/21/aussie-whiz-kids-can-cram-1-6tb-on-a-dvd-
sized-disc-go-outback/
And I was hoping that the supremely stupid physical form of the CD would
make an exit at some point in my lifetime.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:17 -0600, somebody wrote:
> the supremely stupid physical form of the CD
What's wrong with the physical form?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> That's nothing. What's scary is this:
That was scary too, but I lost the link to it by the time I decided to post
a "this is scary" post here. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>
> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
Why is that scary? Almost none of the work is done by the main program
anymore; everything from model loading to rendering can be offloaded to
a separate binary library and the graphics driver itself.
All they need are methods for setting the camera, the GL state, loading
models, and rendering said models. They don't even have to add
primitive support if they don't want to. Advanced effects can be had by
loading GLSL files as well.
Basically, all of that abstraction is finally paying off.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>>
>> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
>
> Why is that scary?
For the same reason that building a complex UI by manipulating a DOM is scary?
"Scary" means "I can't believe we've come to the point where this is
actually a useful idea." :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>
> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
Seems to require a plugin. More like Google's answer to Flash and Silverlight.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
> >>
> >> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
> >
> > Why is that scary?
>
> For the same reason that building a complex UI by manipulating a DOM is scary?
>
> "Scary" means "I can't believe we've come to the point where this is
> actually a useful idea." :-)
everyone just loves doing lowlevel assembly programming...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:17 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > the supremely stupid physical form of the CD
> What's wrong with the physical form?
Naked optical media was a braindead idea from the start.
Classic music CDs work mostly. The data density is relatively low (by
modern standards at least) and they have so much error correction information
that the CD has to be *really* scratched before it starts giving errors
(although I'm pretty sure most people have their own stories about non-working
music CDs). Nevertheless, it's still a bad idea: The optical data is just
there, naked, without any protection, and can easily be destroyed inadvertedly
by scratches, dirt and whatnot. Just accidentally drop the CD and you might
have a scratch.
Then they came up with the brilliant idea that hey, we need a new format
with a lot more capacity than the CD, so let's create the new format to
have the exact same shape and size as a CD so that players can support both.
Good idea, except that you get all the problems of a naked optical media
squared. Cubed. Due to the immensely higher data density, DVDs are like a
hundred times more prone to get problems due to stains and scratches. Once
again: Barenaked optical media, no protection whatsoever, extremely easy
to detroy inadvertedly by accident.
Now we are doomed to have all future optical media have the same flaw,
for the simple reason that they want the players to be backwards-compatible
with the older optical media. Backwards-compatibility sounds all nice and
practical, but in this case it's simply repeating past mistakes.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> http://startupearth.com/2009/05/28/a-deeper-look-inside-googles-o3d-api/
>
> Accelerated 3D graphics in javascript?
And JavaScript is worse than SDL because...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
