Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Jul 2013 23:07 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones "Mozilla today announced that the regional launches of Firefox OS smartphones will begin soon. Deutsche Telekom and Telefonica will release the first Firefox OS devices, the ALCATEL ONE TOUCH Fire and the ZTE Open, soon. Individual partners will announce specifics about launches in each market soon." Lots of soons in there.
Thread beginning with comment 566053
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I think it's exciting
by Nelson on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: I think it's exciting"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Right. On mobile devices (and Firefox OS is a mobile phone OS) being 20% slower is still needlessly terrible.

And asm.js isn't portable in that it actively hurts performance on non asm.js browsers according to your link.

So now you're taking a 20% hit and losing the benefit of ubiquity. Talk about making a bad situation worse.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I think it's exciting
by Lennie on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 00:28 in reply to "RE[2]: I think it's exciting"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

They are targeting the low-end market, people that currently have a feature phone, because they can't afford a smartphone. Android needs more resources just to be able to run on these low-end devices, FirefoxOS needs less resources.

You need to look at the remember that the Asm.js project is only a few months old and only has a few people working on it.

Asm.js is trying to show the way to introduce new languages and existing native code for the web.

It is trying to be a better solution than the initiatives by Google to introduce their own variant of ActiveX.

You think introducing NaCL or PNaCL from Google is a better idea than asm.js ?

Asm.js does work on any browser. Do you really think the other browser vendors will adopt NaCL or PNaCL or Dart ? Asm.js can be made to work with other languages people are already using to translate to Javascript like Typescript and CoffeeScript. To give developers more choice not less choice.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: I think it's exciting
by Nelson on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 00:59 in reply to "RE[3]: I think it's exciting"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They are targeting the low-end market, people that currently have a feature phone, because they can't afford a smartphone. Android needs more resources just to be able to run on these low-end devices, FirefoxOS needs less resources.


Right, and the videos I saw on The Verge of Firefox OS devices showed the same stutter experience that is the hallmark of Android low end phones. What exactly is different? I understand Mozilla is saying it needs less resources, but honestly, what's the experience like?

If a 256MB Firefox OS phone runs just as terribly as a 512MB Android phone then there is no difference. Run better with less, or run better with the same. Don't run the same with less, because then you're only saving money. You're still frustrating users.


You need to look at the remember that the Asm.js project is only a few months old and only has a few people working on it.

Asm.js is trying to show the way to introduce new languages and existing native code for the web.


And that's fine and dandy. Even commendable. However a 3 month old project isn't exactly changing the landscape yet.

]
It is trying to be a better solution than the initiatives by Google to introduce their own variant of ActiveX.


What I see here are clumsy implementations. The web has long since needed a new standard bearer language. Google is on the money with Dart. There needs to be a powerful VM with knowledge of types and the optimizations that they bring in order to get great performance out of the hardware.

The interim solution has been PNaCL since most of the scenarios today are for game engines and such, to which this friction is minimal. Similarly, a lot of the asm.js demos are best suited for gaming (given the synergy between webGL and NaCL)

JavaScript itself, the language, has deficiencies that make it not such a good candidate for optimization. Trying to paper over that with asm.js isn't a long term fix, its a short term hack with questionable ramifications.


You think introducing NaCL or PNaCL from Google is a better idea than asm.js ?


I think they're fundamentally the same thing. asm.js is a less mature idea than PNaCL. As soon as you start wanting to do more complex things, the illusion of asm.js fades away.


Asm.js does work on any browser. Do you really think the other browser vendors will adopt NaCL or PNaCL or Dart ? Asm.js can be made to work with other languages people are already using to translate to Javascript like Typescript and CoffeeScript. To give developers more choice not less choice.


Right, but this comes at an obvious performance cost. Firefox being faster while others are slower kind of spits in the face of ubiquity. When there's a performance wall between the feature in browser X vs browser Y, they might as well not be source compatible.

re: NaCL in other browsers
Well PPAPI originally had Mozilla's support, so I'm not sure what happened there. I think there are mutual interests in a solution to JS performance on the web.

If Mozilla won't play game, find another partner. Go to the W3C. Talk to Microsoft. Form a coalition. I don't know which one will win in the end, but what I do know is that asm.js in its current form isn't it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: I think it's exciting
by moondevil on Wed 3rd Jul 2013 05:09 in reply to "RE[3]: I think it's exciting"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

You think introducing NaCL or PNaCL from Google is a better idea than asm.js ?


Both are another braindead idea to bend the browser into something it is not.

They offer zero benefit over native applications.

Reply Parent Score: 3