Supposedly Oracle is planning to have Java target JavaScript (source). If this is true then I’ll be very pleased and it might just be enough to rejuvenate Java development for the browser. YAY!
[quote]Supposedly Oracle is planning to have Java target JavaScript (source). If this is true then I’ll be very pleased and it might just be enough to rejuvenate Java development for the browser. YAY!
[/quote]
So they expanding to all of Java instead of just JavaFX. Though not everything could be supported like files but still very cool. 8)
Meh.
that’s why I stick on 1.1 ^^ lol, everythings continu to work well
before thinking of new features java plugin MUST be put into a stable release that work EVERY WHERE… and get some utility tools ( studio like ) maybe a day Oracle (too bad to say Oracle rather than Sun) will considere this…
javafx will probalby have got more succes if it was producing regular/standard java Applet code (as a studio) rather then bringing a completly new plugin that requiere installation
I find some workarounds on known bugs and it works quite fine too.
[quote=“DzzD,post:44,topic:36029”]
I agree with you and reinventing GWT is not a good idea. The best solution is still the use of a true JVM. JavaScript is still noticeably slower than Java. As far as I know, JavaFX 2.0 will have a true Java API (see the roadmap). Having a solution like GWT could be a nice complementary option but it should not replace the JVM.
Being able to use jars as scripts always struck me as being something useful but no browser ever tried it.
Cas 
Yes that’s true, however at the rate its progressing and the stiff competition in the area, it doesn’t look like it’ll be long before performance catches up to hotspots.
[quote=“gouessej,post:45,topic:36029”]
At lot of the bottlenecks for a lot of sites are also down to network latency, the speed of altering the dom and the speed of rendering. Web sockets should help to reduce network latency and all major browsers will have fully hardware accelerated graphics for rendering next year.
But JavaScript is not as cross-platform as Java. Look at the source code produced by GWT… JavaScript cannot completely replace Java therefore it is still preferable to have a JVM and a fallback solution (JavaScript engine, JavaScript VM, something like GWT, etc…).
It runs on the iPhone. For client-side that’s a lot more desirable then Solaris or HP-UX.
There are still other solutions to “run” Java on IPhone including ISpectrum, XMLVM, etc… I was not thinking about Solaris, I remind you that the JavaScript source code produced by GWT for each target shows that JavaScript requires much more efforts to support several browsers and it is even more obvious when you have to do it yourself without such tools. JavaScript could allow to support currently unsupported platforms including IPod, IPhone, IPad, etc… but it cannot completely replace a JVM and a true JVM would be a better solution. Whatever you do, Java emulated with JavaScript won’t be able to do all things a JVM can already do and I don’t think only about games inside the browser, actually I’m not interested in the browser.
Finally I would prefer that Oracle concentrates its efforts on the JVM and tries to negociate with Apple to get a nice JVM + the Sensor API on IPhone, IPod and IPad. Until it is ok, there are a few solutions to convert Java into Objective-C.
WebGL won’t be on Internet Explorer 8)
http://learningwebgl.com/blog/?p=993
[quote]The acceleration feature takes advantage of hitherto untapped computing power in a way that’s more useful than other browser-boosting technology–Google’s Native Client to directly employ PC’s processor and Mozilla’s WebGL for accelerated 3D graphics, for example–according to Dean Hachamovitch, general manager of Internet Explorer.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10400638-264.html#ixzz186PbYdn1
[/quote]
[quote=“gouessej,post:51,topic:36029”]
GWT supports IE 6, FireFox 1, Safari 2 and other really old browsers. That’s why it needs to go to such efforts.
The types of places that still use really outdated browsers wouldn’t be interested in 2D and 3D games running in the browser (or high-end apps). Those who are typically use a non-IE browser (although IE 8 is still really popular). So even though WebGL will be missing in IE9 I don’t think this will really harm WebGL’s future.
Cas seems to be talking about embedding V8, which is very portable. So most of the last few post are OT for that situation.
another source http://www.taranfx.com/java-javascript-runtime-environment
Interesting, something like this coming from Oracle is rather surprising as they might actually pull it off (unlike say from Sun).
Don’t expect GWT to cover all features of Java.
[quote=“JL235,post:52,topic:36029”]
Microsoft almost succeeded in killing SVG in the past by not supporting it early enough in Internet Explorer. I’m sad but if MSIE 9 does not support WebGL, it will really harm WebGL’s future. JavaScript is only a good fallback solution, not THE solution.
JavaScript works on any platform which supports Java 1.5+. Of course it also works on lots of other platforms as well. E.g. you could use it on the XBox 360, PS3, or even on the Nintendo DS if you really want.
It took Microsoft 10 years to support alpha channel in PNG images.
Don’t hold your breath for any fast adoption from that slow paced giant.
It does not provide all features that are already in Java and you will never have WebGL on XBox 360 8) Come down to Earth. Java to JavaScript solutions are nice complements especially on platforms that have no JVM but they don’t replace real Java. If I was forced to port a game on XBLA, I would use IKVM rather than a solution based on JavaScript. You are not allowed to use any RSX driver on PS3 so you won’t get a legal support of WebGL on it 8) Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft won’t let anyone develop a nice legal solution that would allow to develop and deploy games on their platforms without paying their licenses for their own SDKs. This thread contains a lot of science-fiction 
I know that. Sometimes it is not problematic for a given technology (PNG for example) but in some cases, it is the opposite (SVG for example).
IE 9 beta supports SVG so that shouldn’t be a problem.
Microsoft could have done it several years ago… Implementing it so lately was a way of killing this technology. If Microsoft plans to do the same with WebGL, maybe you will have WebGL support in MSIE 14 ;D