Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rubyruy's commentslogin

Pfshaw, tags are old hat. They are also just a re-hashing of the humble search keyword of olde.

The real new hat is search and all major OSes are doing this more or less correctly now. I don't recall the last time I browsed to a document.

Also worth mentioning that the concept of "documents" is itself a quickly aging hat. With some very few exceptions most documents are tied pretty closely to just one app and apps and those apps in turn can have more specific ways of handling those documents (i.e. projects, libraries etc).

The internal representation of files and programatic access is another matter - we do need a better way to segregate access and assign metadata to files. Possibly a relational file system would be the way to go, but it's not a problem that very urgently needs solving for anyone so nothing too exciting there for a while....


The MIME type is allowed to add information about the nature of the data encoded on top of the encoding. This is why we have application/xhtml+xml. It means "this is encoded using xml, and btw the parsed xml structure is xhtml".

The ideal place to handle this is (as pointed out above) content negociation - specifically as 'application/rjson+json'


Good... the slow blade penetrates the shield... but look down. We'd have joined each other in death. However, you did seem to finally get in the mood.


I don't think kevlar protects against blades either


For the Dune reference! :)


The license/copying file that is actually distributed with the code still is what you have to go by.

Without license information you MUST assume full copyright sadly.


I agree. Sadly, we also run into plenty of cases distributing LICENSE files that don't match file headers, etc.


Yeah it's just unfortunate. It's effectively like attempting to distribute a broken library. People simply can't use it, and even though it may have had the workings of a good solution for many people, you're just not going to get any users/contributors. shrug


I was hoping for a more technical article - the core techs for HTML5 gaming aren't quite from what I can tell. WebGL and the Audio APIs in particular seem on shaky ground for the moment... it seems there are still rather major security and performance problems to deal with.

Most worrying however is the utter lack of any non-TCP networking in the browser, not even at the specification-proposal stages. Any sort of real time multiplayer really kinda needs UDP to work efficiently. P2P is also fairly important for certain applications and is in a similar state.

Anyway, not that this means to give up hope completely, just of disappointing there aren't many visible efforts to address these issues on the horizon.


> I was hoping for a more technical article

Sorry to disappoint, there are a lot of more technical articles out there, I wanted to look at this more from the perspective of the process of making games than a more detailed technical overview.

> the core techs for HTML5 gaming aren't quite from what I can tell. WebGL and the Audio APIs in particular seem on shaky ground for the moment... it seems there are still rather major security and performance problems to deal with.

The alleged WebGL security issues are mostly solved now. WebGL has about as much security issues as anything to deal with graphics, a computer can crash because of CSS 3D transitions almost as much as it can because of WebGL.

As for Audio APIs, open security issues are mostly to do with user permissions. The worst thing you can do currently is break the ears of the user and make the application unresponsive. You can do as much without audio APIs: var a = new Audio(); a.src = 'noise.mp3'; a.play; while(1);

As for the maturity of the APIs, WebGL offers most of the capabilities of OpenGL, except for a few quirks like Texture1D not being supported, more strict limits in construct sizes and referencing arrays (for some types you need to use constant value indices, unlike in normal OpenGL).

Audio APIs are in a weird spot now, we have two proposals, one from Google and one from Mozilla. Both have their virtues, and they offer solutions to a bit different problems. But at W3C Audio WG we are working on making these things better, so that eventually we'll get audio APIs across all browsers.

> Most worrying however is the utter lack of any non-TCP networking in the browser, not even at the specification-proposal stages. Any sort of real time multiplayer really kinda needs UDP to work efficiently. P2P is also fairly important for certain applications and is in a similar state.

This is indeed a huge weak spot, but it's hard to achieve securely. Making solid APIs for P2P connections, spanning more use cases than video streams would unleash open a galore of new doors, so I do hope WebRTC will bring forth a good solution.


If you are looking for a technical article check Cubiq'a excellent series of articles on the subject. http://cubiq.org/hexagame-the-making-of-an-html5-game As a bonus you can play with the source code as it's all open source.


>Most worrying however is the utter lack of any non-TCP networking in the browser, not even at the specification-proposal stages.

WebRTC is supposed to have a proposal for this at some point, though currently it only has video conferencing specified.


WebRTC will in fact have TCP and UDP sockets with arbitrary content, so it will be great for games.


There aren't 2 Ts or any Ys in "video", duh.


Nice try, GWB. We all know there's a "Y" in "Vidya" as in "Vidya games".


Paul Graham can compress ANY data by at least 1 bit, including binary 1.


I have a very reliable lossy compression algorithm for you if interested. It's extremely computationally scalable as well.

I just map all values to 0.


It seems to me you are missing the point of living in a modern economy - one with currency and the free exchange of goods and services ;)

Yeah, you could go to medical school and "make a difference". However, I'm going to guess (perhaps wrongly) you're not going to go into it for the shear pleasure of medical research, but rather, because you simply want to "help people".

You "want" a lot of things, day to day. Food, shelter, entertainment - the works. But you are not a farmer, nor a construction worker, nor a writer. Instead, you simply do whatever it is that gives you a reasonable tradeoff between marketability and enjoyment. You specialize. You become a programmer and make money (looky there, a lot of it!). Now you can use this money to pay others to full-fill your needs, and the people who receive your money are in turn specialists in their own field, and they can do a FAR better job at providing [food|shelter|entertainment] then you ever will.

The desire to "help people" is no different. You have a desire, and you have an ability to make money. Other people have the ability to satisfy your desire, for money. Pay them to make it happen.

If you go to medical school, you will spend ~$200,000 on it, and more importantly you will forgo MILLIONS of dollars during the time you are studying instead of doing what you're good at (startups, programming, investing, whatever). A million dollars can provide scholarships for 5 bright and promising students who each have a much higher chance of coming up with something that will "change the world" then you do. It's simply a question of efficiency.

Having said that, you do get to be involved at least to some extent. As consumers, we pay others to do the bulk of the work for us, but we still have to make some important decisions: What do we buy? Who do we hire? Who do we delegate responsibility to?

Incidentally, these are very much "investment" decisions, so your background in this area will serve you well. "Invest" in a charity program. Set one up from scratch if none of the existing ones are satisfactory. Gather motivated and qualified people. But beyond that, the best thing you can do is keep working on the things you are best at. A "Web 2.0 AJAX social network blah blah blah application" might seem petty and trivial in the greater scheme of things, but it gives you more power to change the world then most people can dream of.

Imagine you really were a medical researcher and you find out someone you love has cancer. All-nighters can only do so much. You still need to run tests, hire assistants, get software and equipment. Chances are, you won't be able to cure the disease on your own anyway. You'd feel just as impotent.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: