| JSpongy by Ribbon [web] | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||||||
|
popularity : 71% |
|||||||||
alltime top: #771 |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
added on the 2009-10-23 19:33:01 by p01  |
||||||||||
popularity helper
comments
WOW!
what?
:)
O.o
Une merveille de snippet en java script!
I never understood the fascination with javascript as a demoplatform, but this literally made me LOL :)
Also, i'm sure someone can do a faster and smaller version on amiga :)
Also, i'm sure someone can do a faster and smaller version on amiga :)
yay
Someone make a Sparta-comment, because this is truly madness. :)
g10p
pléthaure zbob !
ROX
madness !
poï <3.
Wiz Bang!
JS domination
hehe
sorry, but what's the point in converting an existing 128b intro into a 512b javascript intro (apart from the learning experience, but then you don't release it)?
mega! (even if i don't know what javascript is :)
This really is great work. Thanks.
blala: are you aware that we are not talking about a simple copy-paste but an actual re-coding of the entire thing using differnet techniques. not to mention the concept of size-coding in JS is not the same thing as size-coding via opcodes.
I think this is a major achievement. Amazingly smooth on my system too <3.
I think this is a major achievement. Amazingly smooth on my system too <3.
Awesome!
what blala said + thumb
Well done!
*poi*
great!
SCHEISSE in a positive sense!!!
You nutter :)
Respect!
Scheiss die Wand an!
What the hell
Full respect! And what Decipher said :)
MAIS OUAIS PUTAIN MAIS OUAIS §§§§§§
Quote:
yeah, i'm aware that x86 asm is not javascript (even though i didn't write more than a line of javascript in my life, that's maybe balanced by the few hundred thousands lines of x86 asm...). but it's not like there are a large number of extremely complex algorithms in a raymarching 128 byte intro, which you have to invent heavy "new techniques" for...are you aware that we are not talking about a simple copy-paste but an actual re-coding of the entire thing using differnet techniques.
Quote:
i don't.I think this is a major achievement.
Quote:
that only means that you have an amazingly fast system.Amazingly smooth on my system too <3.
i find it ironic and sad that this simple javascript conversion has more thumbs, already on the first day, than most of the demos with weeks (or even more) of hard work in them...
wow!
Runs like shit here. Firefox 3.5.3.
(0.2 fps)
(0.2 fps)
Wait. It seems to only update when I move the mouse.
not working here. (opera)
screenshot vote. :)
screenshot vote. :)
YES SW FOR LIFE!
Respect at full power!
The reply to all those who think that 3D gfx cannot be rendered and through web browsers.
The reply to all those who think that 3D gfx cannot be rendered and through web browsers.
Correcting:
Quote:
.....rendered and applied through web browsers.
nice!
Cool!
btw. works in ff. very nice one!
nice!
pfft :P funny
i'm gonna have to agree with blabla that this is *not* a major achievement at all; then again i'm pretty sure that's not the author's opinion nor intention either
but hell it's a cool gesture and JS ftw! :)
but hell it's a cool gesture and JS ftw! :)
i meant blala.. something with habits.
uglier, slower and 4x bigger code than the original, at least it's online
niice
p01, js master :) thumbs up!
uh? no!
Thanks everyone! Especially Mentor :)
Well, even though it may not be obvious to eveyrone, along the size optimizations, there are a couple of speed optimizations in JSpongy and these did not come out of the blue. The whole thing took some efforts and thinking to figure out ways to get a reasonable speed and retain a small footprint and large-ish feature set ( rotation around multiple axis, overall styling, cross browser compatibility, numerical precision, ... ).
About the size itself, you have to remember that JavaScript is a scripting language. The form sent to and used by the user agents is the source code. Not native compiled code like x86 opcodes. So iin terms of size alone, JSpongy and Spongy are like apples and pears: uncompiled (super) high level code vs compiled low level code.
The "release" version of JSpongy is wasting many bytes in CSS and overall styling, The raymarching algorithm itself isn't that complex. The smallest size I reached so far for the intro was around 310 bytes by scarifying a lot on the styling and camera target. Had someone managed to cram a similar raymarcher in 256 bytes of JavaScript, or less, I would definitely give my hat off.
Well, even though it may not be obvious to eveyrone, along the size optimizations, there are a couple of speed optimizations in JSpongy and these did not come out of the blue. The whole thing took some efforts and thinking to figure out ways to get a reasonable speed and retain a small footprint and large-ish feature set ( rotation around multiple axis, overall styling, cross browser compatibility, numerical precision, ... ).
About the size itself, you have to remember that JavaScript is a scripting language. The form sent to and used by the user agents is the source code. Not native compiled code like x86 opcodes. So iin terms of size alone, JSpongy and Spongy are like apples and pears: uncompiled (super) high level code vs compiled low level code.
The "release" version of JSpongy is wasting many bytes in CSS and overall styling, The raymarching algorithm itself isn't that complex. The smallest size I reached so far for the intro was around 310 bytes by scarifying a lot on the styling and camera target. Had someone managed to cram a similar raymarcher in 256 bytes of JavaScript, or less, I would definitely give my hat off.
video plz
cool!
This is just fucking cool.
:D
p01: if you ever have the time, i'm quite interested in what those optimizations/hurdles are (in form of a small doc/page)
nice challenge and funny to see mentor's work jscriptisized
blala: My amazing system is a MacBook Pro. But hey, thanks though now I can be that Macfag and say "of course it is an amazing system, it's a Mac.", no really I hate those guys.
and oh using Firefox 3.5.3
woot nice
safari 4.03 is definitely not up to the task :)
safari 4.03 is definitely not up to the task :)
blala may be pissed, but so am i aswell, as his point has a point !
doesnt belong here tho, blala ;) ( <3 u ;) )
doesnt belong here tho, blala ;) ( <3 u ;) )
The Rrrola of Javascript made it one more time.
excellent
no way... o_O
jeaah =)
Great!!! In the Google Chrome this work very fast
Good stuff.
interestingly enough, this was a lot faster once i remembered to pause the dvd ripping process i had going on :)
omg ! stargazer in JS \o/
Good job!
Works in OWB on OS4.1 ;-)
fakking ossom, just damn slow :D
Impressive!
puts my jsplasma to shame :P
puts my jsplasma to shame :P
great!
slow, but really impressive
neat
what zefyros said
Crazy shit. But too damn slow. :/ (although, pressing '-' a couple of times, does improve the framerate a bit ;) )
o_O slow ?
I get 15 to 30 fps in Chrome 4 on my 2yo Core duo 2 @ 2.0 Ghz laptop with a rusty integrated Intel GMA 950
I get 15 to 30 fps in Chrome 4 on my 2yo Core duo 2 @ 2.0 Ghz laptop with a rusty integrated Intel GMA 950
Ooh yeah. Runs pretty good too, on safari/osx here.
Nice! :)
perhaps this should be somehow linked via pouet to the original?
poi: Yes, slow. 2 fps at most in Opera 10. Not amazing, but decent CPU. I don't see what the GPU has to do with this as it's not WebGL related? :)
tomaes: I know it's dog slow in Opera 10. That's why I recommended Chrome 3+ & Firefox 3.5+ although my default browser is Opera.
FWIW, using an internal build of Opera I got a framerate pretty similar to what I get in Chrome.
FWIW, using an internal build of Opera I got a framerate pretty similar to what I get in Chrome.
yeh, javascript-engine of Opera very slow, use Chrome for this intro ;)
nice
Awesome!
In Chrome it works good enough... but this doesn't make a good promotion for Opera :P
Tell me about it :p
And Carakan, Opera's new JS engine with JIT and co. , will certainly wait for the next major release. :\
And Carakan, Opera's new JS engine with JIT and co. , will certainly wait for the next major release. :\
Hm... JavaScript got kinda boring with the rise of <canvas>
really fast, bold and stylish (for js=)
Slow on my IceWeasel (aka Debian's Firefox v3) and didn't work in Mozilla's SeaMonkey v1.1.18, Firefox v2.0.0.20, and Internet Explorer v6.0 SP3. :(
JIT ( and TraceMonkey ) only made it's way in FireFox in the version 3.1.
And CanvasImageData is quite recent too.
And CanvasImageData is quite recent too.
i follow your releases since some time now..
srsly..
i love your work.
anyways... your 3d thomb 2 appears to be offline on your homepage :(
srsly..
i love your work.
anyways... your 3d thomb 2 appears to be offline on your homepage :(
Quote:
Slow on my IceWeasel (aka Debian's Firefox v3) and didn't work in Mozilla's SeaMonkey v1.1.18, Firefox v2.0.0.20, and Internet Explorer v6.0 SP3. :(
then do some research about <canvas>
thinking that this could run in IE is kinda INSANE.
i beliefe microsoft will put <canvas> into the IE at around 2014
Very nice.
wow. this is REALLY SLOW on firefox and REALLY FAST on chrome. hat off to the v8 engine.
btw, did i mention i once saw the v8 guys in person? it was when i worked for google.
thay all wore shirts with "V8" printed on them in gigantic size. there's some team & product identification for you!
unfortunately, much of the rest of google is not nearly as cool as that team. :[
btw, did i mention i once saw the v8 guys in person? it was when i worked for google.
thay all wore shirts with "V8" printed on them in gigantic size. there's some team & product identification for you!
unfortunately, much of the rest of google is not nearly as cool as that team. :[
Pheewww! Got this puppy under 300 bytes. Actually the "hardcore" version of JSpongy stands at 297 bytes at the moment.
Slowly the 256 bytes bar seems more reachable for ray tracing/marching effects in JS.
Slowly the 256 bytes bar seems more reachable for ray tracing/marching effects in JS.
wow
Awesome, runs fine on my Firefox 3.6.6
Fantastic stuff ... !!!
What rudi said.
.
Savage.
works especially fast on teh MacBook Air.
and it's not only technically mindblowing but also really beautifull to see! the magic of mathematics :)
and it's not only technically mindblowing but also really beautifull to see! the magic of mathematics :)
Oh yeah.
Still really slow under FF.
Impressive.
Impressive.
Chuck Norris might approuve that
.
runs superbly smooth in FF! :]
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh la la!
i wonder how does it works...
long missing thumb! ♥
also : 281 bytes?? that's way closer than i would have thought, respect
also : 281 bytes?? that's way closer than i would have thought, respect
submit changes
if this prod is a fake, some info is false or the download link is broken,
do not post about it in the comments, it will get lost.
instead, click here !
Respect to Mentor.