The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology
Welcome to TDWTF Forums Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

Last post 02-23-2012 5:53 PM by boomzilla. 185 replies.
Page 1 of 4 (186 items) 1 2 3 4 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 02-11-2012 3:50 PM

    Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    So I recently installed the Minecraft runtime Java on my machine and got an error I've been seeing on other machines. A cryptic box that pops up every so often:

    Microsoft JScript compilation error: Syntax error

    It shows up in the taskbar with a Java icon, and started just now on this machine when I installed Java. The fact that Java seems to use JScript behind the scenes worries me. (And JScript with a syntax error at that!)


    Information technology not available until further notice. The political trolls won. Wake me up when the discussion is more interesting then YouTube comments.

  • 02-11-2012 4:40 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Minecraft is written in Java? So that's why it looks so shitty.

    Java doesn't use JScript. I have no idea what's going on here.

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 02-11-2012 5:01 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    It's not completely impossible that someone's written a wrapper around Java using JScript, just like people will sometimes write shellscripts that wrap around Java programs on Linux systems. (On older Windows versions, if you want to write a wrapper script around something, you have the choice of DOS-like batch files, JScript, or VBScript. Not the happiest selection, there…)

  • 02-11-2012 5:22 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    ais523:

    It's not completely impossible that someone's written a wrapper around Java using JScript, just like people will sometimes write shellscripts that wrap around Java programs on Linux systems. (On older Windows versions, if you want to write a wrapper script around something, you have the choice of DOS-like batch files, JScript, or VBScript. Not the happiest selection, there…)

    Good point, that didn't occur to me. In fact, I bet that's it; summoning a Java app can be a verbose mess and batch files suck for doing it.

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 02-11-2012 6:50 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    ais523:

    It's not completely impossible that someone's written a wrapper around Java using JScript,

    That was my thought.

    I initially bashed out a post about Java and JScript being unrelated, and Miff conflating the JScript error to a recent Java install... then thought of the possibility that someone was calling JScript from Java, or using JScript to call a Java applet.

    ... and I also thought that nobody in their right mind would do that... would they?

  • 02-11-2012 7:25 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    morbiuswilters:
    Minecraft is written in Java? So that's why it looks so shitty.
    I'll assume that was a tongue-in-cheek remark seeing as the language it's written in has no impact on the graphics.

  • 02-11-2012 7:38 PM In reply to

    • fatbull
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 10-06-2008
    • 
    • Posts 228

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    I have seen that message box before. I believe the automatic Java updater (jusched.exe) causes it.

    CLI is like a text adventure.
  • 02-11-2012 8:07 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    DOA:

    morbiuswilters:
    Minecraft is written in Java? So that's why it looks so shitty.
    I'll assume that was a tongue-in-cheek remark seeing as the language it's written in has no impact on the graphics.

    Of course it does. If a language is bloated and slow, it's not going to be capable of rendering top-notch graphics. How many high-end 3D games do you know of that are written in Java? That said, Java is probably capable of better 3D graphics than Minecraft uses, but still..

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 02-11-2012 8:40 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    As much as I hate java, I cannot blame it on the shitty graphics and overall slowness of Minecraft. No, the blame goes to the man behind Minecraft,Notch, and his horrible code and a lack of understanding of how opengl works.
  • 02-11-2012 9:14 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    delta534:
    As much as I hate java, I cannot blame it on the shitty graphics and overall slowness of Minecraft. No, the blame goes to the man behind Minecraft,Notch, and his horrible code and a lack of understanding of how opengl works.
    Well, and OpenGL alone is, what, a 10% performance hit in Windows. Not that Java has any DirectX libraries anyway...
      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 02-11-2012 9:36 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

     Obviously Java is not going to win any speed contest but that's a bit besides the point. The way OpenGL works is you load all your visual data into it, along with textures and any shader (program that runs on your vid card) you've coded after which speed is determined almost exclusively by your video card. The only updates you make for each new frame is things that change (orientation/position changes, adding new visuals), so Minecraft could have had some serious bleeding-edge eye candy if someone had put the effort to create it, despite it being written in Java. It sure as hell could have had far, far better textures. As far as I can tell the whole low tech thing is a design decision made because at first a lone dev couldn't do everything and later it had become the trademark look of Minecraft, not to mention that avoiding fancy stuff makes it playable on older PCs. Every time you decide to use a fancy new feature in OpenGL (and I assume DirectX) you are automatically making your entire game unavailable to a range of older vid cards.

    The only effect Java has had on Minecraft is (arguably) speed. When you're actually pumping large amounts of new data into OpenGL like when you move and new scenery pops up then it can be argued that Java's ByteBuffer objects are not as fast as the equivalent structures in say... C++. That and that damned garbage collector can easily cause speed hiccups in a game that needs to hold so much data in memory at any one time.


  • 02-12-2012 4:17 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    blakeyrat:
    Well, and OpenGL alone is, what, a 10% performance hit in Windows. Not that Java has any DirectX libraries anyway...

    Is this down to the OS developers maintaining OpenGL/DirectX interpretation, or is it down to the hardware vendors to produce appropriate drivers that expose the GPU's full capabilities?

    I've never really understood the arguments between these competing specs and how they affect graphical development (but that's probably because I'm not a high-end gamer nor involved in graphical development of any type, so have no real deep vested interest in conducting long research on the topic).

  • 02-12-2012 7:55 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    blakeyrat:
    delta534:
    As much as I hate java, I cannot blame it on the shitty graphics and overall slowness of Minecraft. No, the blame goes to the man behind Minecraft,Notch, and his horrible code and a lack of understanding of how opengl works.
    Well, and OpenGL alone is, what, a 10% performance hit in Windows. Not that Java has any DirectX libraries anyway...
     

     It's not that OpenGL is the reason for the performance impact, it's just that most of the OpenGL-drivers suck... Ati and Intel are famous for having shitty support here, it's more like 50% in certain cases...

    On that note, Minecraft doesn't really use any of the areas in which DirectX is more advanced than OpenGL anyway...

    [quote user="blakeyrat"]Fuck you plant math article[/quote]
  • 02-12-2012 9:07 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    MiffTheFox:

    So I recently installed the Minecraft runtime Java on my machine and got an error I've been seeing on other machines. A cryptic box that pops up every so often:

    Microsoft JScript compilation error: Syntax error

    It shows up in the taskbar with a Java icon, and started just now on this machine when I installed Java. The fact that Java seems to use JScript behind the scenes worries me. (And JScript with a syntax error at that!)

    Fire up Sysinternals'  Process Explorer.  Next time the error dialog pops up, drag the little cross-hair icon (as also seen in Spy++) from the ProcExp toolbar over the requester window; you'll see the outline light up as you move over it, then release the cursor, and process explorer will show you which task owns the window.

    Then you can look at the process properties and figure out what it is, what it's doing, and how/why it got invoked.


  • 02-12-2012 10:17 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    morbiuswilters:
    Minecraft is written in Java? So that's why it looks so shitty.
    no, it looks shitty because Notch is not a graphics guy. because of java it's just absurdly slow.
    This is not the signature you are looking for
  • 02-12-2012 10:30 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    DOA:
    not to mention that avoiding fancy stuff makes it playable on older PCs
    are you effing kidding me? up until this point i was taking you seriously. i mean, yes, it usually works that way. except not with minecraft, which has about the same recommended minimum configuration as Crysis. it WILL run on weaker machines, but in that case you better be a big fan of slideshows.
    This is not the signature you are looking for
  • 02-12-2012 11:49 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Cassidy:
    Is this down to the OS developers maintaining OpenGL/DirectX interpretation, or is it down to the hardware vendors to produce appropriate drivers that expose the GPU's full capabilities?
    Both? But mostly the latter.

    Unless you're Matrox, and OpenGL is literally the only reason you're still in business, there's just not a lot of point to OpenGL in Windows. They just need enough OpenGL support to get all those boring CAD programs running. All the excitement, all the new development, and all the $$$ from basement-dwelling gamers, is in DirectX.

    And if your DirectX is real good, you can compete to provide the graphics hardware for the next Xbox, then you'll be rolling in $$$.

    Cassidy:
    I've never really understood the arguments between these competing specs and how they affect graphical development (but that's probably because I'm not a high-end gamer nor involved in graphical development of any type, so have no real deep vested interest in conducting long research on the topic).
    It's not too difficult to find/write a translation layer to spit out DirectX on Windows, and OpenGL everywhere else-- the challenge there is getting your OpenGL looking decent when it's competing with all the nice shit in DirectX 11. That's what a ton of game companies do, even for PS3 games.

    fire2k is right, though, I doubt Minecraft's doing anything where a difference in the two APIs would show up on screen.

      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 02-12-2012 12:46 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    blakeyrat:

    It's not too difficult to find/write a translation layer to spit out DirectX on Windows, and OpenGL everywhere else-- the challenge there is getting your OpenGL looking decent when it's competing with all the nice shit in DirectX 11. That's what a ton of game companies do, even for PS3 games.

    fire2k is right, though, I doubt Minecraft's doing anything where a difference in the two APIs would show up on screen.

    There is near feature parity between opengl 4.2 and directx 11 so you could write a wrapper targeting both. The major issue with opengl as that there is a lot of cruft and bad ways of doing things in the api that the khronos group would like to get rid of but cannot for various reasons. Hell, if minecraft had to use something that had to follow the DirectX way of doing things it would be much faster.
  • 02-12-2012 3:04 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

     Minecraft looks shitty because the graphics have no bearing on it's gameplay, which is way beyond good enough to stand on it's own.

    All the technology and software in the universe is just as useless when the end user has the IQ of a sack of hammers.
    - Me
  • 02-12-2012 3:30 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    delta534:
    There is near feature parity between opengl 4.2 and directx 11 so you could write a wrapper targeting both. The major issue with opengl as that there is a lot of cruft and bad ways of doing things in the api that the khronos group would like to get rid of but cannot for various reasons. Hell, if minecraft had to use something that had to follow the DirectX way of doing things it would be much faster.
     

     Well, "bad way" is kind of harsh - I attended a university lecture in Oregon where the professor was just ranting about how he needed the features they are trying to discourage people from using. Simple matrix transformations, simple kinematics, stuff like that. I would agree that the API is a pain in the ass, but I always assumed it's that way because people designed it to be - the redbook for example used page after page to explain why complete insane things are a good idea. Kind of how KDE-developers decided that JavaScript would be a good language to base desktop-widgets on.

    It's more of a chicken and egg-problem right now: OpenGL-perfomance is absymal, so no gaming studio thinks it's worth doing(excluding OpenGL-ES and certain Engine-developers targeting the indie-market). No OpenGL-games uses the stuff that makes money(powerful hardware), so hardware vendors don't bother with good drivers. Add to that the fact that they actually sell cards that are the same Hardware, but optimized drivers, at a much higher cost(FirePro, Quatro), and well, I don't think anybody even wants to change the situation.


     

    [quote user="blakeyrat"]Fuck you plant math article[/quote]
  • 02-12-2012 4:12 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    An obvious solution would to be to have the cleaner stuff in the newer version of OpenGL that's versioned, with a caveat that older stuff won't run with newer OGL.

    I know this has been done in Java, .NET, iOS and various other frameworks/systems... I presume DX has also faced this point and made a decision. Are there reasons[1] why they don't draw a line under the old version and make a distinct break to move with newer developments and drop deprecated stuff?

    [1] political, design, otherwise. 

  • 02-12-2012 4:31 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    What I call the bad way is immediate mode and display lists. The rest I can understand wanting to use but I also see why they would want to remove it. As for the issue of performance, I agree. All drivers suck, they just suck in different ways.
  • 02-12-2012 5:13 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Cassidy:

    An obvious solution would to be to have the cleaner stuff in the newer version of OpenGL that's versioned, with a caveat that older stuff won't run with newer OGL.

    I know this has been done in Java, .NET, iOS and various other frameworks/systems... I presume DX has also faced this point and made a decision. Are there reasons[1] why they don't draw a line under the old version and make a distinct break to move with newer developments and drop deprecated stuff?

    [1] political, design, otherwise. 

     

     Well first off all Nvidia and others spoke out that they would support the discontinued stuff even after it was removed, as a special addition to their drivers. Apparently nobody wants to see all of their OpenGL-programs broken. Which is why nobody believes the depreceated stuff will actually be removed anytime soon, especially with the speed with which new OpenGL-versions are released...

     Second of all it's not like this is all software - hardware vendors have to actually tailor their hardware around the needs of this.Which makes a lot of the older design choices a bit dated... a big problem with writing OpenGL-drivers for ATI-cards after the 5xxx-series was that they dropped a lot of the 2D-specific circuits and instead just emulated it. And with OpenGL being designed with long-term in mind it's hard to say which parts of the hardware will actually remain the same. I remember when different shaders for different tasks were all the rage - vertex shader, pixel shader, even geometric shader. A few years later everybody decided it wasn't worth it and instead put a ton of unified changeable shaders on there.

     A cleaned version exists btw - OpenGL ES, which is the go-to-API for mobile development. I wonder how that will pan out, but then again I'm still confused by what exactly Microsoft's strategy in the mobile market is.

     

    [quote user="blakeyrat"]Fuck you plant math article[/quote]
  • 02-12-2012 6:54 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Are you people seriously discussing Minecraft's graphics? Is that some weird humor I don't get or are you just bloody crazy? Minecraft was never meant to be good looking. If you don't get... well, you'd have to be retarded. Next, I know hating Java is hip, but try at least not to be rediculous about it. It's *the* languge of choice for non-toy projects for a reason.
  • 02-12-2012 7:12 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    and when I say non-toy, I mean Cassandra (the storage engine behind your beloved Facebook), Hadoop (the distributed file-system and mapReduce engine behind Yahoo), Android etc.
  • 02-12-2012 8:28 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    veggen:
    Are you people seriously discussing Minecraft's graphics?
    Yes.
    veggen:
    Is that some weird humor I don't get or are you just bloody crazy?
    Are those two things mutually-exclusive?
    veggen:
    Minecraft was never meant to be good looking.
    And we're the crazy ones?
    veggen:
    It's *the* languge of choice for non-toy projects for a reason.
    Habit? Ignorance of better alternatives? Some vague desire to "stick it to Microsoft"?
      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 02-12-2012 8:35 PM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    They want to make a buggy non-standard UI? Desire to introduce security holes into web browsers? Desiring the application to incorrectly support named folders, multiple monitors, spaces in filenames, etc on Windows? They think non-Java software runs too fast? They love giving money to Oracle corporation?

    Stop me if I get near the answer...

      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 02-13-2012 2:35 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Then I won't be stopping you any time soon.

    I do agree Java is far from the best solution for desktop apps. It's natural habitat where it kicks ass is the server side. Still, the UI has no reason to be buggy. The libraries are all quite mature. No idea about multi monitor thing, might be a limitation in the "has to run anywhere" philosophy. Of course, it can't look native, but I for one, very much appreciate being able to run *the same copy* of the app on my multiboot machine, or support only a single version of the app for my clients (yes, I'm working on a Java project).

    Spaces in filenames is bull. Java installs itself in Program Files by default and it has a space.

    Browser security is bull as well. Of course it can introduce insecurity when it's supposed to run code in the browser. Language X can not harm the browser when it doesn't have a browser plugin. What else would one use to run in a browser? ActiveX? Flash might work, but depending on what needs to be done, it might lack power (as you'd need another language anyway for the back end). Silverlight? Seriously, who even develops that let alone installs that?

    Next, why would anyone be giving any money to Oracle? Java is free in every sense.

    Being slow is quite close to being nonsense as well. It's slower than native code, but just as fast as any managed language and much much faster than the hip scripting langs. I've worked on a variety of platforms, Php, .Net and Java being more recent, and nothing compares to Java on the server side (Google said something very similar when they were choosing the platform for Android).

    People really need to stop judging Java by it's desktop capabilities, but even there it's receiving unerned slack. Because it's hip to hate Java. Btw, posting thanks to Opera Mini, which is Java, and thus can run even on my old phone.

     

    mod: linebreaks. I forgive you because the wysiwyg editor is probably not availabe on a mobile device.  –dh

  • 02-13-2012 3:11 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Bonus points for Java bashers if you can name any of the following:

    1) an ORM that can compare to Hibernate
    2) full text search that can compare to Lucene and Solr
    3) anything that will let you do SmartCard authorization through the browser alone
    4) anything that can compare to Hadoop
    5) anything that can do distributed transactions without breaking sweat
    6) libraries for everything from form validation to molecelar biology readily available
    7) all of the above on any platform you want

    Mindless bashing made me the Java defender I am.

  • 02-13-2012 3:34 AM In reply to

    • tdb
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-24-2008
    • Posts 386

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    veggen:
    Java is free in every sense.

    Yeah, and when you use this wonderfully free technology on a highly popular smartphone OS you risk getting sued over patent infringement. Wait, what?

  • 02-13-2012 3:42 AM In reply to

    • tdb
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-24-2008
    • Posts 386

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Cassidy:

    An obvious solution would to be to have the cleaner stuff in the newer version of OpenGL that's versioned, with a caveat that older stuff won't run with newer OGL.

    That was done a few years ago when OpenGL 3.0 introduced a deprecation model that allows dropping ancient stuff from the spec. Hardware vendors still have to provide support for OpenGL 2.1 though, since there are a lot of existing applications targeting that version (and even new ones being written, since not all hardware supports OpenGL 3.0 yet [I'm looking at you, Intel]).

    Cassidy:

    I presume DX has also faced this point and made a decision.

    There's no API compatibility between different versions of DirectX. Presumably some parts look the same, but they're still different APIs. Contrast to OpenGL, which is actually a single evolving API with stuff being added and dropped. OpenGL's extension framework also provides greater flexibility as hardware vendors can add support for cool new features right away, rather than waiting for Microsoft to come up with a new DirectX version where the stuff is supported (in theory at least; unfortunately it's likely that in reality the hardware vendors wait for a new DirectX version and then implement the stuff therein on their chips).

  • 02-13-2012 4:25 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    tdb:
    There's no API compatibility between different versions of DirectX. Presumably some parts look the same, but they're still different APIs. Contrast to OpenGL, which is actually a single evolving API with stuff being added and dropped.

    Okay.. that's interesting. Backwards compatibility is a strong selling point of many Microsoft products, but in this case they've deliberately broken it between versions. By preventing something written for an older version running on a newer version means no chance of something running slowly/badly simply because it hasn't been updated and therefore won't take advantage of improved features. It does mean that there's also increased revenue streams with updated products appearing as new... but cynicism aside, I agree with this decision to make a "clean break".

    tdb:
    OpenGL's extension framework also provides greater flexibility as hardware vendors can add support for cool new features right away, rather than waiting for Microsoft to come up with a new DirectX version where the stuff is supported (in theory at least; unfortunately it's likely that in reality the hardware vendors wait for a new DirectX version and then implement the stuff therein on their chips).

    This flexibility can also be its downfall - thinking of deviations and variations in HTML specs introduced by browser vendors that made code reliant upon features found in that particular browser. I recall some articles on Tom's Hardware where a certain game looked nicer on a certain card, thanks to leveraging these customisations and accusations of unfair advantage aplenty.

    It sounds like OpenGL could benefit from following the DirectX dev model of different versions being revolutionary rather than evolutionary. Apache did this between v1 and 2, as did Java, to convey the right message.

  • 02-13-2012 4:58 AM In reply to

    • erikal
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 12-23-2011
    • Netherlands
    • Posts 137

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    fatbull:

    I have seen that message box before. I believe the automatic Java updater (jusched.exe) causes it.

     

    Tell that to the hordes of know-it-all gamers who seem to have total faith in the fact that a game 'engine' produces the graphics, not graphics artists. Yes, slap the Unreal Tournament 3 SDK in your project and TADA!... you've got nothing. Well, perhaps you can make some colored particles float around.

    About installation of Java games: I tend to find that it is easiest if you don't attempt to install anything at all. Just zip it all up and make sure the app/game runs as an executable jar out of the box - for the less than computer savvy people you could generate a bootstrapper executable using one of the many jar wrapper tools available.

     

  • 02-13-2012 5:17 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    tdb:
    veggen:
    Java is free in every sense.

    Yeah, and when you use this wonderfully free technology on a highly popular smartphone OS you risk getting sued over patent infringement. Wait, what?

    Well, not exactly true. Google took pieces out of Oracle's JDK, not the open one (OpenJDK). The fact that none-open implementations exist doesn't make Java non-free. There are non-free Linux distros you know, but that doesn't make Linux non-free.
  • 02-13-2012 5:24 AM In reply to

    • tdb
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-24-2008
    • Posts 386

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Cassidy:

    tdb:
    There's no API compatibility between different versions of DirectX. Presumably some parts look the same, but they're still different APIs. Contrast to OpenGL, which is actually a single evolving API with stuff being added and dropped.

    Okay.. that's interesting. Backwards compatibility is a strong selling point of many Microsoft products, but in this case they've deliberately broken it between versions. By preventing something written for an older version running on a newer version means no chance of something running slowly/badly simply because it hasn't been updated and therefore won't take advantage of improved features. It does mean that there's also increased revenue streams with updated products appearing as new... but cynicism aside, I agree with this decision to make a "clean break".

    Well, obviously the older versions continue to be supported. We're going at DirectX 11 currently, but you can still run programs built on any earlier version, right down to the first ones (though I don't remember anything before DX5 being too popular). However, if you have a game engine using DirectX 9 and want to take advantage of new features in 10 and 11, you'll essentially have to rewrite large parts of the engine. Down at the driver level, similar features of the different versions will likely get dispatched to the same parts of hardware, so this API segregation feels like an unnecessary complexity. Compare this with OpenGL where you can just start using the new functions, without touching unrelated code.

    Cassidy:

    tdb:
    OpenGL's extension framework also provides greater flexibility as hardware vendors can add support for cool new features right away, rather than waiting for Microsoft to come up with a new DirectX version where the stuff is supported (in theory at least; unfortunately it's likely that in reality the hardware vendors wait for a new DirectX version and then implement the stuff therein on their chips).

    This flexibility can also be its downfall - thinking of deviations and variations in HTML specs introduced by browser vendors that made code reliant upon features found in that particular browser. I recall some articles on Tom's Hardware where a certain game looked nicer on a certain card, thanks to leveraging these customisations and accusations of unfair advantage aplenty.

    On the other hand, it enables games to gracefully degrade their rendering quality if they encounter older hardware that doesn't support all the shiny new features (as opposed to not running at all). Admittedly this requires a certain amount of skill to get right.

    Cassidy:

    It sounds like OpenGL could benefit from following the DirectX dev model of different versions being revolutionary rather than evolutionary. Apache did this between v1 and 2, as did Java, to convey the right message.

    Each new version of OpenGL does tend to bring considerable improvements, especially major versions. Version 2.0 added shaders, NPOT textures and point sprites, among other things. Version 3.0 introduced framebuffer objects and floating-point textures. Version 4.0 brought tessellation shaders and a whole bunch of other shader improvements. They just don't break compatibility of the parts that didn't change.

  • 02-13-2012 5:34 AM In reply to

    • tdb
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-24-2008
    • Posts 386

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    veggen:
    tdb:
    veggen:
    Java is free in every sense.

    Yeah, and when you use this wonderfully free technology on a highly popular smartphone OS you risk getting sued over patent infringement. Wait, what?

    Well, not exactly true. Google took pieces out of Oracle's JDK, not the open one (OpenJDK).

    That would be copyright infringement. Google is getting sued over patents, which would apply even if they wrote their code from scratch (unless software patents are even more screwed up than I thought). As another example, xiph.org's audio and video codecs (Vorbis and Theora, respectively) are facing problems with device manufacturers being unwilling to use them because no one will guarantee they won't get sued over patents. So while something may be free both as in speech and as in beer, it might still not be free as in innocent.

  • 02-13-2012 7:32 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    tdb:

    Well, obviously the older versions continue to be supported. We're going at DirectX 11 currently, but you can still run programs built on any earlier version, right down to the first ones (though I don't remember anything before DX5 being too popular). However, if you have a game engine using DirectX 9 and want to take advantage of new features in 10 and 11, you'll essentially have to rewrite large parts of the engine. Down at the driver level, similar features of the different versions will likely get dispatched to the same parts of hardware, so this API segregation feels like an unnecessary complexity. Compare this with OpenGL where you can just start using the new functions, without touching unrelated code.

    Most games/usages aren't meant to be evolutionary anyway. You target a feature-set, code it, then release it. Maybe if you're at a transition point(like Crysis 2) you drop a patch with a few rewrites to make use of a lot of the new stuff. I like the idea of evolving games, but most of them are stuck products, and for actual continuing software the new features are a big enough selling point to not care(Cinema, Maya and so on).

    It's even easier when using a third-party engine, where you can just start using the new stuff.

    On that note - DirectX 9.0 was released 2002, 9.0c in 2004. If your engine is from then you're in a big need of a rewrite anyway...

    tdb:

    On the other hand, it enables games to gracefully degrade their rendering quality if they encounter older hardware that doesn't support all the shiny new features (as opposed to not running at all). Admittedly this requires a certain amount of skill to get right.

    To be quite honest the only program that ever even had this as a problem(I'm excluding everything that is just plain wasteful with hardware specs) out of DirectX was Crysis 2. So examples would be welcome here... And seeing how OpenGL hits a lot of performance issues they are actually even worse...

    tdb:

    Each new version of OpenGL does tend to bring considerable improvements, especially major versions. Version 2.0 added shaders, NPOT textures and point sprites, among other things. Version 3.0 introduced framebuffer objects and floating-point textures. Version 4.0 brought tessellation shaders and a whole bunch of other shader improvements. They just don't break compatibility of the parts that didn't change.

     

    As an addenum for other users we should add that all of these features were way after DirectX already did them. OpenGL has been in need of a better release model for a while, and is getting beaten to all the "new shiny stuff" all the time. And tessellation is a nice thing if ATI is throwing a hissy fit in their driver...

     

    [quote user="blakeyrat"]Fuck you plant math article[/quote]
  • 02-13-2012 7:44 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    fire2k:
    On that note - DirectX 9.0 was released 2002, 9.0c in 2004. If your engine is from then you're in a big need of a rewrite anyway...
     

    What games right now do not run with DX9?


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 02-13-2012 8:01 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    dhromed:

    fire2k:
    On that note - DirectX 9.0 was released 2002, 9.0c in 2004. If your engine is from then you're in a big need of a rewrite anyway...
     

    What games right now do not run with DX9?

     

    It's not that they do not run with DX9, it's just that they have a lot of redundancy to run both - DX10/DX11 Patches make away with DirectSound or DirectInput for example...

    The problem with making a game DX10-only is that the cards that support it not necessarily have the horsepower to run it - I have a DX10-compatible HD5850, but it is too slow to actually use the features found in DX10 in most games... So game studios will keep a second path with DX9, especially with games being in development for at least a year(if it's rushed out...), when the card situation still was a little different... 

     

    [quote user="blakeyrat"]Fuck you plant math article[/quote]
  • 02-13-2012 8:16 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    fire2k:
    DX10/DX11 Patches make away with DirectSound or DirectInput
     

    I can't parse this sentence fargment.

     


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 02-13-2012 8:29 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    dhromed:

    fire2k:
    DX10/DX11 Patches make away with DirectSound or DirectInput
     

    I can't parse this sentence fargment.

     

     

    http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/make-away-with

    Third meaning. I could have said "kills with fire". A ye olde gods.

     

    [quote user="blakeyrat"]Fuck you plant math article[/quote]
  • 02-13-2012 8:44 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

     Ok


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 02-13-2012 9:43 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    veggen:
    Spaces in filenames is bull. Java installs itself in Program Files by default and it has a space.
    Admittedly that was probably some badly-written software. But I've encountered more than one Java app that doesn't like being fed paths with spaces in them, most recently Amazon's AWS CLI tools.
    veggen:
    Browser security is bull as well. Of course it can introduce insecurity when it's supposed to run code in the browser.
    I'm not griping because it can, I'm griping because it does. Anyway, Java in the browser is dead, it's been dead for ages.
    veggen:
    Silverlight? Seriously, who even develops that let alone installs that?
    Silverlight is amazing. I wish a lot more sites used it.
    veggen:
    Next, why would anyone be giving any money to Oracle? Java is free in every sense.
    Really? Then why is Google getting sued?
    veggen:
    Being slow is quite close to being nonsense as well. It's slower than native code, but just as fast as any managed language and much much faster than the hip scripting langs.
    Please. It takes somewhere around 45 seconds just to close NetBeans. You honestly think that's as fast as "any managed language?" As for as "hip scripting langs", look into the newer generation of JavaScript interpreters, they basically kick ass and take names.
    veggen:
    I've worked on a variety of platforms, Php, .Net and Java being more recent, and nothing compares to Java on the server side
    The server side is where Java is least-weak.

    The problem is that when you say "Java" to me, I think WebEx. I think NetBeans. I think Eclipse. I think Amazon AWS CLI tools. I think Lotus Notes. And all those products suck shit. And they're all in Java.

    veggen:
    Google said something very similar when they were choosing the platform for Android
    Yeah, and because it's so "free in every way", right? Oh wait...
    veggen:
    People really need to stop judging Java by it's desktop capabilities,
    When I run a single Java desktop program that doesn't suck shit, maybe I'll start changing my mind. If you want people to think your little pet language is good, you need to get your community to stop releasing shit software written in it.
      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 02-13-2012 9:49 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    Cassidy:
    Okay.. that's interesting. Backwards compatibility is a strong selling point of many Microsoft products, but in this case they've deliberately broken it between versions.
    They do the same thing with .net, in case you haven't noticed. That's the new strategy for "relatively painless" backwards compatibility. Better than writing 50,000 shims for every new version, at least...
    Cassidy:
    This flexibility can also be its downfall - thinking of deviations and variations in HTML specs introduced by browser vendors that made code reliant upon features found in that particular browser. I recall some articles on Tom's Hardware where a certain game looked nicer on a certain card, thanks to leveraging these customisations and accusations of unfair advantage aplenty.
    Supposedly it's a huge pain to make bleeding-edge games in OpenGL for exactly this reason... all of that DirectX backwards compatibility stuff we just talked about has to be in your game engine because you can't make it rely on any particular combination of extensions. I've seen several articles calling-out OpenGL because of this from some big names... Carmack wrote one, if I'm not mistaken... yeah: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/1

    EDIT: This whole Google Java thing reminds me of when Adobe was going on and on and on about how open the PDF standard is, anybody can put PDF in their application it's so open open open! Then Microsoft went, "ok then we'll put it in Office" and Adobe ran to their lawyers so fast they made smoke trails? Yeah, Java being "open" is kind of like that. Words don't matter; actions do.

      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 02-13-2012 10:00 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    blakeyrat:
    veggen:
    Spaces in filenames is bull. Java installs itself in Program Files by default and it has a space.
    Admittedly that was probably some badly-written software. But I've encountered more than one Java app that doesn't like being fed paths with spaces in them, most recently Amazon's AWS CLI tools.
    Is there any language where this isn't so? IME, this is always a problem with the way the software is written, or the way it is used, not with the underlying language used. Obviously, CLI users have to escape or quote spaces, and there's not much of anything a program can do to overcome user error.
    I denounce myself for this post
  • 02-13-2012 10:23 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    OH YAY IT'S BOOMZILLA
    boomzilla:
    Is there any language where this isn't so?
    Maybe, maybe not. The point is I never see this bug in programs that aren't written in Java, but I frequently see it in programs that are. Maybe the problem isn't Java-the-language but Java-the-culture. Either way, it's a Java problem.
    boomzilla:
    IME, this is always a problem with the way the software is written, or the way it is used, not with the underlying language used.
    Except that as we've discussed on this site before, the Java runtime has critical bugs in it that make it virtually impossible to write correct software in Windows*. The named folders thing we went over in that NetBeans thread, for example. WebEx's inability to see what's on my second monitor-- those bugs are specifically due to the software being written in Java, because they are inherited from the JRE. Those are Java problems. The named folders one being particularly noteworthy because it was broken even on the JRE's release in 1995, and it's still equally broken now in 2012.

    *) It probably has critical bugs that make it impossible to write correct OS X or Linux software, also, but I'm not as familiar with those environments so I will reserve judgement.

    boomzilla:
    Obviously, CLI users have to escape or quote spaces, and there's not much of anything a program can do to overcome user error.
    Yes, well, problem number one is deciding to write a CLI interface in the first fucking place. Thankfully, Amazon has finally gotten around to writing a web interface for all their services and their CLI tools sit around unused.
      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 02-13-2012 10:40 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    fire2k:

    dhromed:

    fire2k:
    DX10/DX11 Patches make away with DirectSound or DirectInput
     

    I can't parse this sentence fargment.

     

     

    http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/make-away-with

    Third meaning. I could have said "kills with fire". A ye olde gods.

     

    I've never heard it used that way. 1st meaning - to steal - is what's normally meant. Either 'do away with' or 'make an end of' for 'kill'.
  • 02-13-2012 10:49 AM In reply to

    • dtech
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-13-2007
    • Dutchland
    • Posts 877

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

     I think the troll (veggen) is hilarious. Actually quoting Facebook for choosing Java while a few simple googles could've told you that Facebook is written in PHP an compiles it to C++.

  • 02-13-2012 10:52 AM In reply to

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    blakeyrat:
    When I run a single Java desktop program that doesn't suck shit, maybe I'll start changing my mind. If you want people to think your little pet language is good, you need to get your community to stop releasing shit software written in it.

     

     SoapUI is pretty nice.  Well, it would probably be much better if it weren't written in Java, but... still, it doesn't suck.

  • 02-13-2012 11:31 AM In reply to

    • tdb
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-24-2008
    • Posts 386

    Re: Javascript is to Java as JScript is to J?

    blakeyrat:
    Cassidy:
    This flexibility can also be its downfall - thinking of deviations and variations in HTML specs introduced by browser vendors that made code reliant upon features found in that particular browser. I recall some articles on Tom's Hardware where a certain game looked nicer on a certain card, thanks to leveraging these customisations and accusations of unfair advantage aplenty.
    Supposedly it's a huge pain to make bleeding-edge games in OpenGL for exactly this reason... all of that DirectX backwards compatibility stuff we just talked about has to be in your game engine because you can't make it rely on any particular combination of extensions. I've seen several articles calling-out OpenGL because of this from some big names... Carmack wrote one, if I'm not mistaken... yeah: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/1
    Linked article:

    'The actual innovation in graphics has definitely been driven by Microsoft in the last ten years or so,' explained AMD's GPU worldwide developer relations manager, Richard Huddy. 'OpenGL has largely been tracking that, rather than coming up with new methods. The geometry shader, for example, which came in with Vista and DirectX 10, is wholly Microsoft's invention in the first place.'

    This is unfortunately true. Development of 3D graphics hardware is driven by games these days, and all the big development studios are targeting Windows1. Microsoft has a monopoly on the DirectX specification, so there's little point for graphics chip vendors to innovate themselves. And since Microsoft isn't collaborating with the Khronos group, they have to wait for Microsoft to release the new version of DirectX before they can update the OpenGL spec to match.

    While the specification being in the hands of a single company may be a good thing in some respects (there's exactly one feature set to target, and no need to do any runtime checks), it's also a seriously limiting factor in others. If you write games using DirectX, they will run on Windows and Xbox, period. OpenGL implementation can be found on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Android and iOS at least.

    It's also true that despite deprecating most of the ancient cruft, OpenGL still has some baggage from its early days. I'm told the approach it takes to specifying which GPU resources (textures, shaders, buffers etc) to use for rendering is a rather poor match to how graphics hardware actually works. The API also allows modifying several types of objects which in fact are immutable for the GPU (textures dimensions, framebuffer object attachments), so the drivers have to dance around these. Back when OpenGL 3.0 was in development, it was supposed to take care of these issues as well, but eventually the committee chickened out and chose compatibility over technical advancement.

    1) The last game studio to consider releasing a major title on Linux (that I know of) was Epic with Unreal Tournament 3. At first the Linux installer was supposed to be featured on the game DVD, then to be released as a separate download shortly after the retail release of the game, then "as soon as it's ready". Finally, after two or three years of procrastination they finally admitted there won't be a Linux version. Supposedly Ryan Gordon got the game ported, but it ran into some middleware licensing issues. There hasn't been an official statement of that, so we'll probably never know.

Page 1 of 4 (186 items) 1 2 3 4 Next >
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems