Page 6 of 8 « First 45 6 78
Reply
Thread Tools
Joorin is offline Joorin
2011-10-02 , 11:29
Posts: 726 | Thanked: 345 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ Sweden
#51
You mix apples with oranges and finish it off by countering your own argument.

Originally Posted by Radu View Post
I really do not understand this point of view. If you want portability, you use C and something like SDL, or GTK or QT, which are guaranteed to run on almost all devices with a screen. HTML 5 is very unstandard (lots of machines don't have support for it), and when you mix native code to it you lose all the multiplatform benefits you might have had.
Here you argue for native code, C or C++, together with SDL, GTK or Qt, which I'm guessing is there as something "platform independent".

But, that's exactly what HTML5 is planned to bring to the table. With a rendering engine for HTML5 available, it replaces GTK and Qt and supplies bindings for playing sound and video using yet another batch of native code. Just as SDL, GTK and Qt does.

But why? How many people know C compared to HTML5? I don't see how implementing even simple applications in HTML5/JavaScript is easier than in C/C++.
This is just a red herring. Have you done any HTML(5)/JavaScript development? If you failed at it, does it make HTML5 a failure?

Have a look at the available HTML/JavaScript development tools out there. FireBug, for example, makes it easy to test and debug your code inside the browser that is then going to run the code which is something you can't just whip together if you're compiling and debugging your C/C++ code. Especially not when developing for a mobile device...

Since HTML5 a new, soon to be, standard, it's obvious that there are fewer developers that know it compared to some other established technology.

Evolution? If by evolution you mean usefulness, then this is an involution. Are you under the impression that the CPUs are infinitely fast, and use no energy? Each extra level of abstraction will eat your battery and slow down your device.
What has "usefulness" to do with energy consumption? Keep your fruits separated.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joorin For This Useful Post:
misterc's Avatar
misterc is offline misterc
2011-10-02 , 12:29
Posts: 1,625 | Thanked: 998 times | Joined on Aug 2010
#52
going to try and close that OFF-TOPIC paranthesis
not that the thread has many topic related posts, but, still...

[close OT]
this all sounds like an academic discussion, if it wasn't for the fact that it is hosted on a web forum and thus just usually forum crap without the slightest practical use... arguing about the sex of the angels
ever heard the motto "eco-system"?
Flop was one of the last ones to try and make it sound like it was the future, for NOKIA if nobody else.
point was, NOKIA will have a much brighter future once it is sharing an app store w/ m$. apart from the fact that if it really was about app store, it would have been much more effective to choose ANDroid as an OS, the whole point of an APP store is to have ppl give you their CC# to get as many apps as they can (not) afford.
cross-platform? naaaa, not really.
[/close OT]

MeeGo dead?
well, as far as NOKIA ever was concerned, after the announcement of the N9 my first thought was «naaaaa MeeGo isn't ready yet, so they had to polish it some, to make it usable on a daily basis...»
looking @ it now, well, MeeGo gone, one is left with Harmattan and Meltemi.
Maemo is still firmly in NOKIA's grip
the site, the proprietary code parts, everything (that matters).
thus, the moment Flop's contract gets ended (a couple months after the 1st m$ device(s) fail as miserably as any other m$ device before) NOKIA will concentrate on Symbian devices again and... MeeGo is dead, long live Maemo
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to misterc For This Useful Post:
erendorn's Avatar
erendorn is offline erendorn
2011-10-02 , 12:40
Posts: 738 | Thanked: 983 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ London
#53
Originally Posted by Joorin View Post
With a rendering engine for HTML5 available,
Oh yeah, so much for the platform independent stuff.

In the end you always need either port of the libraries (c and c++ frameworks), or port of the engine (python, java, android pseudo-java, html and javascript).
What HTML5 provides is a scripting language dedicated to UI design, but so does QML..
 
lma is offline lma
2011-10-02 , 12:53
Posts: 2,802 | Thanked: 4,491 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#54
The funny thing is, up to version 1.1 MeeGo was also supposed to provide a web runtime. But for some reason they decided they needed a completely new project instead of just adding it back.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post:
Radu is offline Radu
2011-10-02 , 18:47
Posts: 303 | Thanked: 146 times | Joined on Aug 2009
#55
Originally Posted by Joorin View Post
You mix apples with oranges and finish it off by countering your own argument.

Here you argue for native code, C or C++, together with SDL, GTK or Qt, which I'm guessing is there as something "platform independent".

But, that's exactly what HTML5 is planned to bring to the table. With a rendering engine for HTML5 available, it replaces GTK and Qt and supplies bindings for playing sound and video using yet another batch of native code. Just as SDL, GTK and Qt does.
1. HTML5 is not, right now, available on the machines the previously mentioned libraries are available. And it will never be, especially on the older machines.

2. HTML5 is obviously not as fast as native library, because there is lots of parsing and scripting involved, which is slow and inefficient.

This is just a red herring. Have you done any HTML(5)/JavaScript development? If you failed at it, does it make HTML5 a failure?
I didn't, but how is that relevant?

What has "usefulness" to do with energy consumption? Keep your fruits separated.
WTF kind of question is that? How can something be useful if it eats your phone battery significantly faster than what we had before?
 
Joorin is offline Joorin
2011-10-03 , 06:49
Posts: 726 | Thanked: 345 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ Sweden
#56
Originally Posted by Radu View Post
1. HTML5 is not, right now, available on the machines the previously mentioned libraries are available. And it will never be, especially on the older machines.
Another red herring. You like fish, apparently.

Was GTK or Qt available for all those platforms from the start? Of course not. It's a gradual process of porting, as always.

And if HTML5 doesn't make it to your toaster running GTK, what of it? There are lots of useful technologies that haven't been ported to every platform out there. And a surprising amount that have, thanks to the efforts of industrious programmers.

2. HTML5 is obviously not as fast as native library, because there is lots of parsing and scripting involved, which is slow and inefficient.
You mean, as with all and every browser out there parsing ordinary HTML and rendering text and images while running JavaScript?

On the relative scale, rendering engines are slower than "native code", nothing to argue about there, but they offer lots of nifty features that you need to know pretty well to use effectively in C/C++ to get the same feature set. This is part of the power of HTML(5).

Code:
<html>
  <body>
    <h2>Hello World!</h2>
  </body>
</html>
I dare you to write this simple program in C/C++ and get the same features and then claim that it's so much harder in HTML5. I double dare you to explain how the tools used for C/C++ are easier to use than an ordinary text editor and the "Reload" button in a browser.

I didn't, but how is that relevant?
It's relevant because your argument is incredibly weak. Just because you think HTML5 is harder to use than C/C++, it doesn't make it so. Especially since you didn't even try it (and I'm interpreting your answer kindly now excluding the "failing at it" option).

WTF kind of question is that? How can something be useful if it eats your phone battery significantly faster than what we had before?
Something being useful isn't limited by battery consumption. I can run lynx (or even wget) in an xterm on my N900 and "surf the interwebs" but it's easier to do it using microB, a browser, even though it will "eat my phone battery significantly faster".

And for the record: I loathe having to write HTML and I wretch at having to write (and debug) JavaScript. I, like you, prefer C for most things.

I'm not defending the HTML(5) technology as such, I'm addressing your arguments.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joorin For This Useful Post:
Radu is offline Radu
2011-10-03 , 08:39
Posts: 303 | Thanked: 146 times | Joined on Aug 2009
#57
Originally Posted by Joorin View Post
Another red herring. You like fish, apparently.
You are obviously trolling.

Was GTK or Qt available for all those platforms from the start? Of course not. It's a gradual process of porting, as always.
WTF... we have at least 3 libraries that have ports on pretty much all the OSes, and can be ported on any device that runs those OSes. And now you want developers to develop on yet a new thing, that is SLOWER, not widely adopted, and has little or no benefit over the existing things?

You mean, as with all and every browser out there parsing ordinary HTML and rendering text and images while running JavaScript?
Yes, I mean exactly that.

On the relative scale, rendering engines are slower than "native code", nothing to argue about there, but they offer lots of nifty features that you need to know pretty well to use effectively in C/C++ to get the same feature set. This is part of the power of HTML(5).

Code:
<html>
  <body>
    <h2>Hello World!</h2>
  </body>
</html>
I am not sure what are you trying to say here. That whole HTML code can be replaced with one line of C code, if you already have a function to draw text at specific locations on screen.

I dare you to write this simple program in C/C++ and get the same features and then claim that it's so much harder in HTML5. I double dare you to explain how the tools used for C/C++ are easier to use than an ordinary text editor and the "Reload" button in a browser.
Well, I triple dare you to write a HTML5 program that is even half as efficient (in terms of CPU cycles) than the equivalent C program. Did you see that fractal HTML5 demo? It is probably about 100K times slower than native code.


It's relevant because your argument is incredibly weak. Just because you think HTML5 is harder to use than C/C++, it doesn't make it so. Especially since you didn't even try it (and I'm interpreting your answer kindly now excluding the "failing at it" option)
I never said HTML5 is harder to use than C/C++..



Something being useful isn't limited by battery consumption. I can run lynx (or even wget) in an xterm on my N900 and "surf the interwebs" but it's easier to do it using microB, a browser, even though it will "eat my phone battery significantly faster".
Totally irrelevant example, or 'red herring' as you like to say. If you write an application in HTML5 or GTK, for example, the user should not see any difference. it is about lazy application developers who don't want to make an extra effort to assure more efficient code.

And for the record: I loathe having to write HTML and I wretch at having to write (and debug) JavaScript. I, like you, prefer C for most things.
I'm not defending the HTML(5) technology as such, I'm addressing your arguments.
My arguments still stand. No HTML5 code will ever be near as efficient as native C code.
 
erendorn's Avatar
erendorn is offline erendorn
2011-10-03 , 09:29
Posts: 738 | Thanked: 983 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ London
#58
Originally Posted by Radu View Post
My arguments still stand. No HTML5 code will ever be near as efficient as native C code.
And I don't think it is meant to. The majority of the "apps" are only there to display/transfer preprocessed data between API (that use native code) and servers that provide/process the data (and use native code).
HTML5 is more efficient for that because it reduces development time at the cost of runtime efficiency. But in that case, UI is the main aspect of the program hence high dev cost and low runtime cost.
For the rest of the applications (productivity and games), even tizen will provide a native framework (EFL).
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to erendorn For This Useful Post:
Joorin is offline Joorin
2011-10-03 , 21:24
Posts: 726 | Thanked: 345 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ Sweden
#59
Originally Posted by Radu View Post
You are obviously trolling.
Au contràire. I'm actually just reading what you write, and very carefully at that, and responding to, in my eyes, weak arguments.

WTF... we have at least 3 libraries that have ports on pretty much all the OSes, and can be ported on any device that runs those OSes. And now you want developers to develop on yet a new thing, that is SLOWER, not widely adopted, and has little or no benefit over the existing things?
I don't want anything apart from constructive and balanced discussions about new technology.

And, again: those three libraries didn't start out being available for all those platforms. The porting has been gradual.

I am not sure what are you trying to say here. That whole HTML code can be replaced with one line of C code, if you already have a function to draw text at specific locations on screen.
No, it takes quite a bit more to do the same thing. You need a canvas, you need font support, you need to tinker with window handling, you need a compiler and an environment for it to run in and you need to assemble all these parts to get a binary that writes "Hello world!" in a window.

That's my point. And one benefit with browser bound development is that you can do all this with a simple text editor and the "Reload" button to review the result.

Well, I triple dare you to write a HTML5 program that is even half as efficient (in terms of CPU cycles) than the equivalent C program. Did you see that fractal HTML5 demo? It is probably about 100K times slower than native code.
I'm sure this is some ways away from the goal of HTML5.

But as a suggestion, I'd venture to guess that streaming video will use the same native support libraries no matter if you use GTK or HTML5 for the decoding. Then you need to pay for parsing the HTML document once and then it's pretty much the same CPU cost.

I never said HTML5 is harder to use than C/C++..
You wrote the following:
But why? How many people know C compared to HTML5? I don't see how implementing even simple applications in HTML5/JavaScript is easier than in C/C++.

This sounds very much as such a statement. But what do I know.

Totally irrelevant example, or 'red herring' as you like to say.
I'd say it's a very relevant example based on what you actually wrote.

If you write an application in HTML5 or GTK, for example, the user should not see any difference.
That's an interesting extra requirement you just added. Why is that a given?

it is about lazy application developers who don't want to make an extra effort to assure more efficient code.
Or it's a way to hide most of the ugly stuff via abstraction and supply most of the same functionality using the browser/rendering engine.

My arguments still stand. No HTML5 code will ever be near as efficient as native C code.
If this is your main argument, I do have to wonder why you ventured into arguments about how development would be done and how porting to other platforms was unlikely.

And even if you're right: how does this nullify the usefulness of HTML5?
 
mikecomputing is offline mikecomputing
2011-10-03 , 22:07
Posts: 3,464 | Thanked: 5,107 times | Joined on Feb 2010 @ Gothenburg in Sweden
#60
I dont get why theey dont merge Tizzot with WebOS who already is heavily based on HTML5?

and another thing about tizzon is will Tizzot support Qt in core I really doubt. why would samsung/Intel have intrests in something that Nokia has intrests in. I know nomovoc will support Qt but something is really smoking here. Even if I agree HTML is they way to go in long run but I doubt it can fully replace lower level languages like C/C++

so this means we will be iinroduced to YET another API. Question is are the community willing to learn yeat another new API? isnt Linux fragmented enought with different API doing same thing? Seriously atm I have NO trust in those big companys. And Linux foundation!? well I dont know! after the mess with maemo/meego/moblin/webos and now Tizzot.

well well lets see whats happen. Personally I will follow the Mer project and hopefully give them some kind of help too... Atleast by testing weekly images of "MerHCE" then it maybe "merge" with tizzot in the long run who knows......

but atm. I have no trust in those company projects were it more looks like all of them trying to "pissing in theyr revirs" and make it looks like they care about FOSS.
Last edited by mikecomputing; 2011-10-03 at 22:13.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to mikecomputing For This Useful Post:
Reply
Page 6 of 8 « First 45 6 78

Tags
goodbye nokia, html != c/c++, meego is dead

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:32.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top