Re:Chrome Cube Lab
by thrush on Monday May 19, 2014 @12:28PM
(#7768272)
Does the breaking scroll bother anyone else? Besides trying to make a statement, does the breaking scroll serve any practical purpose? For example, does it give the cube on the top/first nav window a chance to load/unload?
Also, it's especially weird that the button in the top left takes you all the way to the top, but the buttons on the top right manage the rest of the navigation.
Re:Chrome Cube Lab
by Pacabel on Monday May 19, 2014 @11:07AM
(#7767751)
Is that worthwhile, though?
Whenever the issue of Firefox's performance or resource usage comes up, the response is usually along the lines of, "There are no problems."
Then somebody usually links to http://arewefastyet.com/, using it as "evidence" that Firefox is somehow faster than the competition.
Meanwhile, there are many of us sitting here using Firefox, suffering from the poor performance that was initially inquired about, wondering how it could possibly be claimed that such an obvious problem "does not exist".
Re:Chrome Cube Lab
by walls on Monday May 19, 2014 @10:45AM
(#7767620)
Chrome is quickly becoming the new IE. Browser demos are now frequently written and tested for the quirks and behavior of a single browser. (and it's always Chrome)
This behavior people have been railing against for years is once again standard.
Re:Chrome Cube Lab
by SEJeff on Monday May 19, 2014 @11:12AM
(#7767796)
Not really. They are based on open standards that use functionality that happens to be faster under V8 (chrome's javascript engine).
In fact, this uses threejs[1] under the hood. It is just that the version of Firefox someone is using sucks in comparison to Chrome for the three.js stuff (likely WebGL).
Re:Chrome Cube Lab
by Pacabel on Monday May 19, 2014 @11:20AM
(#7767841)
In practice, an "open standard" that has only been suitably implemented by just one party really isn't all that open.
Now, maybe there's a greater chance that the situation will change, and other suitable implementations will eventually arise. But until that happens, an open standard with one usable implementation really isn't different from a closed standard at all.
Re:Chrome Cube Lab
by SEJeff on Monday May 19, 2014 @11:32AM
(#7767912)
I would counter that and say, "An 'Open Standard' created and then implemented by 1 party is no different than a closed standard".
However, Khronos[1], the entity that makes opengl, also made the webgl standard. The fact that mozilla hasn't done as good of a job implementing it as google has doesn't magically negate the fact that it is still an open standard (that mozilla has actually implemented, just poorly).
Re:Chrome Cube Lab
by EvanYou on Monday May 19, 2014 @10:52AM
(#7767653)
Specifically for these experiments though, CSS 3D transform has been implemented based on the same working draft for quite a while, and it's mostly being edited by folks from Apple. Firefox being slow really has little to do with people optimizing for Chrome.
Aside from the cool tech, it seems like Google is trying to build on the viral mechanisms that made 2048 so popular - they make it really easy to fork, customize, and launch your own version.
Also, it's especially weird that the button in the top left takes you all the way to the top, but the buttons on the top right manage the rest of the navigation.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=856900
Whenever the issue of Firefox's performance or resource usage comes up, the response is usually along the lines of, "There are no problems."
Then somebody usually links to http://arewefastyet.com/, using it as "evidence" that Firefox is somehow faster than the competition.
Meanwhile, there are many of us sitting here using Firefox, suffering from the poor performance that was initially inquired about, wondering how it could possibly be claimed that such an obvious problem "does not exist".
... which is understood polite-speak for "Yes, it's a problem. No, nobody is volunteering to fix it right now."
This behavior people have been railing against for years is once again standard.
In fact, this uses threejs[1] under the hood. It is just that the version of Firefox someone is using sucks in comparison to Chrome for the three.js stuff (likely WebGL).
[1] http://threejs.org/
Now, maybe there's a greater chance that the situation will change, and other suitable implementations will eventually arise. But until that happens, an open standard with one usable implementation really isn't different from a closed standard at all.
However, Khronos[1], the entity that makes opengl, also made the webgl standard. The fact that mozilla hasn't done as good of a job implementing it as google has doesn't magically negate the fact that it is still an open standard (that mozilla has actually implemented, just poorly).
[1] https://www.khronos.org/webgl/
My personal favorite bug: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116083]
Long story short: "It'll be a problem until someone patches a solution in."
Aside from the cool tech, it seems like Google is trying to build on the viral mechanisms that made 2048 so popular - they make it really easy to fork, customize, and launch your own version.
Nice idea, really.
Works best in Chrome / Safari / Opera.
But...The faces wink a little on my firefox