30 Sep, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 101st comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
Ha, I hadn't heard that silverlight was deprecated. Thats quite funny.

It sure is. Silverlight will likely overtake the JRE in browser installations about this time next year. I think they have 'tech advocacy' and 'tech savvy' confused.
30 Sep, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 102nd comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I think having to install a new plugin is indeed a considerable barrier. For many different reasons I believe a significant number of users will decline when they see they need to download and install something. Whether or not it's logical by our standards as tech savvy computer users, I don't think that actually goes into the equation when someone is on a dialup connection and would rather continue browsing than install your plugin. And that's just one of the reasons people would have. Others include users who don't have privileges to install new plugins on this computer, and those who simply don't trust you enough.


I found Acrobat, Flash, Quicktime, Media Player, JRE, and Silverlight on both my parents computers. I also found them using Firefox.
Being two of the most untech-savvy people I know, I just can't fathom how they muddled through it all. /sarc
I think they're actually atypical. How the hell do you think Firefox got the browser market penetration it does?
It doesn't even come pre-installed on 85% or more of computers sold.
Chrome is going to get a very high penetration in the same exact way.
Actually in more ways than Firefox as they're actually committed to marketing it.
Non-tech savvy users are going to install it in droves.
30 Sep, 2011, oenone wrote in the 103rd comment:
Votes: 0
I would go for HTML5. People are getting more and more aware that they should use an up-to-date browser for security reasons, and most should support HTML5 these days or support it shortly.
30 Sep, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 104th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Quix, your argument is based on a whole ton of assumptions. Let me give you another assumption/question: if somebody's looking for casual gameplay and they have the choice between game A that just works and game B that requires a reboot, what do you think they'll do?


Obviously people would prefer to have things just work. In a dream world, that's a good option. In the real world, there are still people running Windows XP and IE 6 that will never upgrade to ShinyHappyHTML5 or whatever glorius new technology makes everything better than hot buttered toast with jam.

Given a choice between something heavy like the JRE (which is a pain to download and install, and even more of a pain to get the right version you actually need) and something that pretty much requires a single mouse click and (maybe) a reboot… most windows people aren't going to be bothered by the latter. YOU may be a linux geek that thinks an uptime of less than 3 years is horrible, but 90% of the desktops out there are still windows, and those people reboot as a learned habit. Heck, most people turn their machines on and off whenever they want to use them.

As to my original exclaimation… most users don't know or care about the distinction between a plug-in and a stand-alone application. To them, it's a mouse click to install, or not.

Now, I am making the assumption that the potential game developer is trying to reach a wide audience. If that's NOT the case, if they are specifically targeting geeks or office workers who deal with computer issues on a daily basis, then yeah… my arguments fall flat since they have a different level of tolerance, and a different set of expectations.
30 Sep, 2011, bw1024 wrote in the 105th comment:
Votes: 0
Why would you pick HTML5 over HTML4? Websockets for less bandwidth? Canvas? Audio?
30 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 106th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Runter said:
I think having to install a new plugin is indeed a considerable barrier. For many different reasons I believe a significant number of users will decline when they see they need to download and install something. Whether or not it's logical by our standards as tech savvy computer users, I don't think that actually goes into the equation when someone is on a dialup connection and would rather continue browsing than install your plugin. And that's just one of the reasons people would have. Others include users who don't have privileges to install new plugins on this computer, and those who simply don't trust you enough.


I found Acrobat, Flash, Quicktime, Media Player, JRE, and Silverlight on both my parents computers. I also found them using Firefox.
Being two of the most untech-savvy people I know, I just can't fathom how they muddled through it all. /sarc
I think they're actually atypical. How the hell do you think Firefox got the browser market penetration it does?
It doesn't even come pre-installed on 85% or more of computers sold.
Chrome is going to get a very high penetration in the same exact way.
Actually in more ways than Firefox as they're actually committed to marketing it.
Non-tech savvy users are going to install it in droves.


lol? I checked my parents computers. They didn't have those things installed. Anybody else want to add to the anecdotal evidence pool?
30 Sep, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 107th comment:
Votes: 0
bw1024 said:
Why would you pick HTML5 over HTML4? Websockets for less bandwidth? Canvas? Audio?

Isn't this kind of like asking why you would choose a car over a carriage, other than for speed, distance, horsepower and capacity?
30 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 108th comment:
Votes: 0
It's a tangent of the discussion, but I think it's important to note that there will be no HTML6. I think it's interesting that we have a mindset where currently we differentiate between html4 and html5. When it's really just a tiered specification of features. In the future we won't have the convenient comfortable tiers. It's going to be a moshpitt of features, where you as the user have to decide which features you want. And you'll vote with by picking the best browser for the features you need. We're already doing that today. In the future you won't have the "Why use HTML6 vs HTML5?" argument. Going forward with autoupdating clients becoming more popular, tablets and device browsers driving the iteration faster and faster, and consumers expectations of better experiences… I believe we're going to see a situation where holding on the last bastion of internet explorer 6 users (or whatever tomorrow's internet explorer 6 users happens to be) comparable to catering to windows 3.1 today.

The other side of the coin is a developer who does have to consider users who are using outdated technology. I know it's common in the mudding community to believe you have to support the lowest common denominator, leave no telnet behind, but in the real world developers must make choices. Not supporting 5% is different from 20%. Or 50%. We make balanced choices based on the landscape. There's a point where you can give yourself permission to use interesting technologies in web development. Because browsers are advancing rapidly. Whether or not we're there yet today.. well, I think many people are working on innovative ways to free people from the shackles of old browsers and try to give them cross platform ways with fallback to use the feature set of html5. Html5 certainly isn't a gimmick, but we're not yet to the point where most of the interesting html5 stuff is commonplace, but it represents the promise of the web. That we can safely deliver more than a static document to your door. That we can deliver applications that many think require plugins or worse.
30 Sep, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 109th comment:
Votes: 0
The brownser is becoming a giant plugin that needs constant update that in the end makes the bandwidth used by a plugin (usually way lower than the rest)argument moot.
People install any shit if they want to play your game, hence the ease of virus to get a yes clicked.
The only barrier is making people want to play your game.
30 Sep, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 110th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
lol? I checked my parents computers. They didn't have those things installed. Anybody else want to add to the anecdotal evidence pool?

I'm sure a fellow circle jerker will be happy to add to the pool.

Rarva.Riendf said:
People install any shit if they want to play your game, hence the ease of virus to get a yes clicked.

All you need is a basic flash client, flash because most people have it installed. The only reason players will use tactical interfaces, if provided, is because it gives them a tactical advantage. This can create the mis-given idea that players want tactical interfaces, while the truth is that it's an epic waste of time, which is awesome if you let players create the interface as it functions as an additional mini-game.

On the technology subject, a physics engine with a full blown dynamic description generator would be the next evolution in text gaming.
01 Oct, 2011, Silenus wrote in the 111th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually…. I wanna da HTML6 but WAIIIIT!!!!! (it's 3000km to the nearest gas station……).
02 Oct, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 112th comment:
Votes: 0
Silenus said:
Actually…. I wanna da HTML6 but WAIIIIT!!!!! (it's 3000km to the nearest gas station……).

Microsoft and Adobe are working up plans for HTML6. They plan to deprecate JavaScript.
02 Oct, 2011, Silenus wrote in the 113th comment:
Votes: 0
If that is true…. I can trade skip the v8 and get the spider monkey off my back…..
06 Oct, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 114th comment:
Votes: 0
Silenus said:
If that is true…. I can trade skip the v8 and get the spider monkey off my back…..

For some reason developers prefer writing applications in one language (their favorite), not two, three, or more.
Invariably (naturally) other technology will replace JavaScript on the client side of web applications.
Browser plugins to facilitate other execution technology have a very bright future.
06 Oct, 2011, Silenus wrote in the 115th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually I do sometimes wonder about the plethora of languages available to the modern developer(many actually do more or less the same thing). The fundamental constructs in most of these languages have not changed much for an incredibly long period of time. I think many of the key results in compiler theory/languages were "completed" the 80's and lately development in this area has slowed significantly (maybe SSA's where developed in the 90's).

One has for example work in impure functional languages with strict evaluation such as scheme/lisp (which use very regular data structures that one some level are extremely difficult to implement efficiently in hardware) and more C like languages which have features which are more static. Obviously there is the OO stuff like Self. I just do wonder why the innovation in this area has slowed so much. There are still significant "open" questions or perhaps techniques groups of developers might be keeping to themselves.
06 Oct, 2011, Baiou wrote in the 116th comment:
Votes: 0
Joy. Catching up is gonna be hard.
07 Oct, 2011, Runter wrote in the 117th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Silenus said:
If that is true…. I can trade skip the v8 and get the spider monkey off my back…..

For some reason developers prefer writing applications in one language (their favorite), not two, three, or more.
Invariably (naturally) other technology will replace JavaScript on the client side of web applications.
Browser plugins to facilitate other execution technology have a very bright future.


I agree. And most web developers I talk to wish there were other options than javascript natively. Plugins are one route, but another is languages that compile to javascript (like the popular coffeescript). It kinda depends on the motive for wanting a different language.

Silenus said:
Actually I do sometimes wonder about the plethora of languages available to the modern developer(many actually do more or less the same thing). The fundamental constructs in most of these languages have not changed much for an incredibly long period of time. I think many of the key results in compiler theory/languages were "completed" the 80's and lately development in this area has slowed significantly (maybe SSA's where developed in the 90's).


Right, we should all be able to agree on one language. The one you prefer, right? :p

But seriously, what's wrong with letting a thousand flowers bloom? And who's going to head the committee that decides if I have a sufficiently different language that I should be allowed to develop my own?

Maybe you mean you don't understand why someone would want to develop a language that's similar to another that already exists. Or why someone would use a language that's similar. I think the answer is simply a game of numbers in the margins. Most people *do* gravitate towards standards. As many languages as there may be out there, a vast majority of languages created never see widespread adoption. The many (or few, depending on how you look at it) that we do hear a lot about are really a minority in that sense.

Furthermore, if you examine languages very similar like Python and Ruby you'll find that there's very little cross-development. That's because there's no agreement on which similar tool is the best even among experts. If there was a consensus you would see a vast majority using Ruby. Or I guess Python, depending on if you're drinking coke or pepsi.
08 Oct, 2011, Silenus wrote in the 118th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Right, we should all be able to agree on one language. The one you prefer, right? :p


Oh I definitely agree with this. Call it the conservative greedoid phenomena :-).

Quote
But seriously, what's wrong with letting a thousand flowers bloom? And who's going to head the committee that decides if I have a sufficiently different language that I should be allowed to develop my own?


I do feel it is more like an amazon rain forest (since the trees compete for sunlight). However even that is a rather poor metaphor. It really is a marketing critical mass issue (since the utility of a language depends heavily on developer support and API's/libraries). My main criticism here is the polyglot is only superficial the fundamental constructs at a lower level are quite similar. It is almost like one is picking from a fixed grab bag of features and selecting maybe 3,4,5 items and then building some syntax around it.

Quote
Maybe you mean you don't understand why someone would want to develop a language that's similar to another that already exists. Or why someone would use a language that's similar. I think the answer is simply a game of numbers in the margins. Most people *do* gravitate towards standards. As many languages as there may be out there, a vast majority of languages created never see widespread adoption. The many (or few, depending on how you look at it) that we do hear a lot about are really a minority in that sense.


I guess the standards issue affects languages like C++0x. Where many individuals do feel that B. Stroustrup included too many features (to get everyone on the table) which may not be entirely orthogonal so many people perhaps prefer objective C.

Quote
Furthermore, if you examine languages very similar like Python and Ruby you'll find that there's very little cross-development. That's because there's no agreement on which similar tool is the best even among experts. If there was a consensus you would see a vast majority using Ruby. Or I guess Python, depending on if you're drinking coke or pepsi.


Again there is a breakdown here. Coke / Pepsi boils down to availability at your local corner store(access) and nutritional value perhaps :P (the rest is marketing/preference issues as you suggest). However language choice is a slightly different issue. Language choice here depends on what developers in your locale are familiar with, developer support issues, and perhaps library support (i.e. do API's exist that make the task at hand easier).

I guess perhaps one could see it ecologically. There should be enough competition that a few individuals don't dictate too much power (over standards etc) that the developer is handicapped but at the same time there isn't too much "polyglot" so that the developer community becomes too fragmented.
08 Oct, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 119th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I agree. And most web developers I talk to wish there were other options than javascript natively. Plugins are one route, but another is languages that compile to javascript (like the popular coffeescript). It kinda depends on the motive for wanting a different language.

Yeah but we already can write web client applications entirely in C#, VB, Python, Ruby, F#, Pascal, Java, JavaScript, and several other languages.
08 Oct, 2011, Twisol wrote in the 120th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Yeah but we already can write web client applications entirely in C#, VB, Python, Ruby, F#, Pascal, Java, JavaScript, and several other languages.

Only two of those are directly supported by the browser. Did you mean web applications on the server?
100.0/128