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 463619
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I still don't get it
by Moochman on Wed 23rd Feb 2011 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I still don't get it"
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


OK, first of all, Java is *not interpreted*. It hasn't been since Java 1.1, which was replaced with Java 2 *over 12 years ago*!!!! How many times does this have to be rehashed before it finally sinks in???

whew!

OK, second of all, even though it's true that "non-native" code runs slightly more slowly than "native", generally it runs fast enough that assuming the program is well-written, on modern hardware you should not notice a difference. More importantly for games, it is all hardware-accelerated via DirectX or OpenGL--so you *really* should not notice much difference in performance given a decent graphics card. The only weakness Java has in the area of 3D is that it uses its own API which of course lacks a lot of the new, bangwhiz features of the newest DirectX or OpenGL APIs. But for gaming on mobile devices or within the browser, it is still absolutely competitive, because in that case it is going up against the similarly feature-limited OpenGL ES.

Edited 2011-02-23 01:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: I still don't get it
by vodoomoth on Wed 23rd Feb 2011 08:15 in reply to "RE[4]: I still don't get it"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

So you saying that Java is not-native code and it's not interpreted? Wow! What kind of logic is that? Having Java byte-code JIT'ed doesn't make it non-interpreted, otherwise it would be compiled which it isn't.
Unless a third option other than "compiled" or "interpreted" has been found just for Java, it is not different from any scripting, VM'ed, or compiled-to-intermediate-code language.
Of course, you're not saying that Javascript, which is now just as JIT'ed as Java and needs a host program just like Java is not interpreted... or are you?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: I still don't get it
by Moochman on Wed 23rd Feb 2011 16:42 in reply to "RE[5]: I still don't get it"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

So you saying that Java is not-native code and it's not interpreted? Wow! What kind of logic is that? Having Java byte-code JIT'ed doesn't make it non-interpreted, otherwise it would be compiled which it isn't.
Unless a third option other than "compiled" or "interpreted" has been found just for Java, it is not different from any scripting, VM'ed, or compiled-to-intermediate-code language.


Yes. Please get your facts straight before going off on a rant. Java is *compiled* to Java byte code. It is a form of machine code that is run on a virtual machine. It is *not* interpreted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation

As for JavaScript, yes it is interpreted despite the JIT engine that it's running on, because I define interpreted to mean "there is no binary". With Java there is a binary that needs to be created prior to execution, which at least historically (and in part due to the static typing of the language) has meant greater performance compared to interpreted languages. If JavaScript one day truly is able to best Java in performance, then I agree that the distinction will have become more or less meaningless.

Edited 2011-02-23 17:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2