The scrolling was jerky for me on my newish desktop PC. There doesn't seem to be any new "technology" here, just some slow wrappers around stuff that was around years ago. If this is being touted as "the future" then programming is really going down the toilet.
Why down vote? Web babies seem to get very upset when the abject technological failure of the browser is pointed out to them. It has failed comprehensively:
I look forward to trying this out with a few friends from college who were mildly addicted to simple games like Dwarf Fortress and Zelda. Any excuse for old school multiplayer gaming is a good one.
I used simple in two different ways, sorry about that. DF is simple in graphics only, I completely agree. A more appropriate game to mention is Runescape, but I couldn't think of it at the time.
Not trying to bully you, but what part of this is impressive? There doesn't seem to be anything here that wasn't done better decades ago. Why does everything become impressive once it appears in the browser?
I've made some comments like this in similar threads and got downvoted as well. It's just part of the HN groupthink to glorify everything HTML5, CSS3 and WebGL.
A game like this was feasible 20 years ago in a native environment or 10 years ago in Flash. I can only see disadvantages in developing games in JavaScript + HTML.
You're being a troll. Right now you're just randomly sniping at people who comment.
Write up something explaining your views, the post it as a comment/Ask HN/blog post and submit.
Also you seem to be saying this sucks in comparison to some amazing product that doesn't actually exist... the big feature of html5 is that it's already widely deployed.
Sockets are not a new technology. Wrapping sockets in a bunch of overhead and taking away UDP isn't new technology. No smooth scrolling on a PC with a graphics card an inch thick strikes me as a very poor job. But it will be hailed as a "step forwward" because it's in the browser space (which has no standards).
The Browser is a massive step forward in four key areas:
1) Zero-pain installation (no steps, no wait to download)
2) Zero-friction sharing (paste a url to any resource within the app/game)
3) Zero-friction upgrading (happens automatically. depending on architecture, no need to even reload the app)
4) Largest install base of any platform
It's a classic disruptive technology. Yeah the graphics suck. Yeah it's slow. But those things are improving, and will get to the point where they're "good enough" for a big swath of uses. Whereas the four properties above are much more challenging to fit into an Xbox or iOS architecture.
Zero-install is not difficult. In fact, it was around decades ago. Then people destroyed that with complex operating systems requiring loads of configuration. Even with the stupidity of modern operating systems we could recover zero-install with simple virtual machines (or any number of other mechanisms).
Web links are cool. Just about the only redeeming feature of the web. They have absolutely no connection to JavaScript, HTML5 or any of the other hideous complexity you see in the browser.
Browsers are not "zero friction" upgrading. Behaviour changes from version to version. Using Firefox on Linux I have experienced continued breakages. Again, if you had a simple virtual machine it would be simple to port anywhere, and you wouldn't need constant bug fixes.
Your last point has nothing to do with technology. It is simply the result of vendors successfully selling the technology to people. By doing so they've locked other
better approaches out of the market due to network effects.
The remainder of your post is the good old "it'll be good enough" attitude. Except it won't ever be as good as it was because people are reliant on benchmarks that make "freight train" style systems look "fast" for through-put code.
I guess the zero friction upgrading refers to the app, not the browser. You can be pretty sure people are running the latest version just by pushing the code to your server. No need to download/install, or update in an app store.
