Linked by fran on Sun 20th Feb 2011 19:00 UTC
Google "Over the last few months we have been hard at work getting Native Client ready to support the new Pepper plug-in interface. Native Client is an open source technology that allows you to build web applications that seamlessly and safely execute native compiled code inside the browser. Today, we've reached an important milestone in our efforts to make Native Client modules as portable and secure as JavaScript, by making available a first release of the revamped Native Client .[...]In the coming months we will be adding APIs for 3D graphics, local file storage, WebSockets, peer-to-peer networking, and more. We'll also be working on Dynamic Shared Objects (DSOs), a feature that will eventually allow us to provide Application Binary Interface (ABI) stability."
Thread beginning with comment 463444
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I still don't get it
by Moochman on Mon 21st Feb 2011 03:56 UTC in reply to "I still don't get it"
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

OK, after looking at their website I did come up with of a reason why Native Client is useful compared to Java. Simply, Java support is missing from the current/next generation of mobile devices. Flash is present on most of them, but then Flash isn't too amazing for a lot of use cases (anything multi-threaded or involving advanced 3D graphics or sound APIs). Most complex games written today that are meant to be cross-platform for mobile devices are written in C/C++ using OpenGL ES. And so Native Client makes it easier to port said games/apps to new platforms such as ChromeOS.

The question is, exactly how much porting work needs to be done in order to develop, say, a cross-platform MMORPG that runs on both Android tablets and ChromeOS netbooks? Obviously it will be possible somehow, but I can't shake the feeling that this great movement towards "native everything" we're experiencing right now is just a huge mess of fragmentation for the developer compared to the nice, unified model that is the Java platform (Standard Edition)....

Btw, if you don't think excellent-looking 3D games can be developed in Java, take a look at some of the following:

http://wurmonline.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=bd3eb0eeb3a1603eeae...

http://jmonkeyengine.com/showcase/screenshots/

http://bytonic.de/html/screenshots.html

http://www.minecraft.net/

(OK admittedly Minecraft isn't great-looking, but I threw it in there anyway since it's something everyone knows.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I still don't get it
by umccullough on Mon 21st Feb 2011 04:31 in reply to "RE: I still don't get it"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

http://www.minecraft.net/

(OK admittedly Minecraft isn't great-looking, but I threw it in there anyway since it's something everyone knows.)


Really did yourself a disservice there ;)

Minecraft runs like absolute crap on most of my machines. I guess this is because I don't have a high-end graphics card. Considering the level of 3d-ness Minecraft uses, it seems like Java sure does make a crappy 3d platform here.

Also, it's windows-only.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I still don't get it
by Moochman on Mon 21st Feb 2011 08:47 in reply to "RE[2]: I still don't get it"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know about running like crap, but it's definitely available for Mac and Linux.

http://www.minecraft.net/download.jsp

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I still don't get it
by Lennie on Mon 21st Feb 2011 09:26 in reply to "RE: I still don't get it"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

As the inventor of Javascript has said:

"Javascript is not done getting faster"

"There is still more headroom to speed up Javascript"

With Javascript JIT getting better I wonder where the speed ups will slow down. The last big jump was Crankshaft in December from Google V8 which was a jump of 50% in some benchmark. That is still a huge improvement.

Currently we have 3 of the 5 browser vendors with opensource code and 5 competing browser vendors all trying to be faster than the other. And learning from each other.

I don't know if the other browser vendors will adopt Native Client though, otherwise I don't know how useful it will be.

Edited 2011-02-21 09:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I still don't get it
by dsmogor on Mon 21st Feb 2011 16:36 in reply to "RE[2]: I still don't get it"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Still JS (esp. jitted one) is a terrible memory hog.
For swapless mobiles it's a no-go.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I still don't get it
by jabjoe on Mon 21st Feb 2011 11:32 in reply to "RE: I still don't get it"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Have to say, along as your not really doing engine stuff, any language is fine. For many years, many games have the actual game part, done in a script language. What many people don't take into account is that a great engine can look crap with crap artwork, and a crap engine with great artwork can look great. So concentrate on making life as easy for the artists as possible. The engine just has to be good enough. For over the last decade and a half, most of the real work have been done by the graphics hardware anyway. So actually, if WebGL, provides a bit more then just OpenGL (add game engine functionality), games could be done quite happily there. Then it just becomes about good artwork and game play.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: I still don't get it
by remenic on Mon 21st Feb 2011 12:13 in reply to "RE: I still don't get it"
remenic Member since:
2005-07-06

I understand your goodwill in making people believe that Java is a fine platform for 3D games, but if you're going to provide us with evidence, please show us games that have graphics on par with games from 2007, like, say, Crysis. Not games that look like Quake 2, (which even had a PSOne port..). Unfortunately, the list you provided is hardly impressive in 2011, and specially not "excellent-looking".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I still don't get it
by vodoomoth on Tue 22nd Feb 2011 13:02 in reply to "RE[2]: I still don't get it"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I understand your goodwill in making people believe that Java is a fine platform for 3D games, but if you're going to provide us with evidence, please show us games that have graphics on par with games from 2007, like, say, Crysis. Not games that look like Quake 2, (which even had a PSOne port..). Unfortunately, the list you provided is hardly impressive in 2011, and specially not "excellent-looking".

You cannot be serious. Crysis was an absolute pinnacle of graphics when it came out and nothing was close to it. You know that even with current games on current hardware, it isn't common to find the graphical quality that Crysis pioneered in 2007 and these games aren't in any interpreted or "managed" code either. Remember the meme "but can it run Crysis?"... it has been around for years.
Asking for Crysis-like quality from Java games is... well, weird if I can put it that way. The Java proponents can say whatever they want, but in terms of performance, I will never believe that interpreted code can run as fast as native code. Would you buy a Java game that would pretend to be equivalent to Crysis? I wouldn't.

Edited 2011-02-22 13:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3