Print
Javascript rendering speed has been the ammunition of choice in the browser wars, but as most users know, the vast majority of Javascript based web applications aren’t particularly taxing. With most having been designed with IE7 in mind, the vast majority of web apps only scratch the surface of what is possible. But to prove that Javascript is the wave of the future, Google has launched a new site called Chrome Experiments. Using the tag line “Not your mother’s Javascript” Google is showcasing everything from Gravity simulations, to complex Raytracing Canvas’s all inside your browser of choice.
The vast majority of these worked great in my testing with next generation browsers such as Firefox 3.1, as well as Safari 4 & Chrome 2, but IE8 was having a tough time until I shifted it into compatibility mode. According to Google “While it is possible to run these examples in other browsers, the fact that developers optimized the code for Chrome's V8 engine make them run slower (or not at all)”. The Raytracing test is an excellent benchmark for Javascript performance, and will even give you feedback on rendering time for those who want to do their own browser comparisons. Many of the applications are more proof of concept then useful, but it certainly does give us hope for the future of cloud computing. The more powerful the platform gets however, the more prone to exploits it is likely to become. Anyone else remember how exciting the ActiveX days were until hackers crashed the party?
Do you think the smoke and mirror show will help Chrome’s adoption rate?
Comments are closed on this article
rob41
April 04, 2009 at 10:12am
The only thing worse than the rubbish above is how lame Adobe is. Not Flash, that's good, but the company and their inability to get with the times. I have a 64 bit system, and I prefer to use a 64 bit O.S. as well, Firefox Minefield. The problem is that Adobe Flash doesn't work with 64 bit browsers. When you go to their site their solution is "use a 32 bit browser". How lame is that? That's not a solution! IMO the lazy people at Adobe and those at Adobe who have allowed this should be fired! Adobe better get on the ball and do some restructuring. Even their photoshop product line is slow to load and is a resource hog compared to other programs. Are you listening Adobe?
Keith E. Whisman
March 31, 2009 at 10:58am
Thanks for the article, it led me to discover how to get Google Chrome 2 and I'm now very happy as Chrome2 beta fixes alot of what was wrong with Chrome 1.
evride
March 30, 2009 at 12:23am
First of all Java != Javascript you 'tard. They are two COMPLETELY different languages.
And do you even know what cloud computing is? Or do you just throw out popular keywords to get more readers? How is this at all related to cloud computing? You must be confusing general web applications with cloud computing or assuming they are one and the same. But even if you mean this development will improve future web applications you are wrong. Mostly because of this we will just be seeing more of those "OOOH THAT'S COOL!" proofs of concepts. This was all just to show off that when specifically coded for, Chrome will render Javascript code faster than other browsers and will not bring about a new kind of web application.
Also this is all pretty unimpressive. You can do so much more than this at faster speeds with Adobe Flash. Also Flash is cross platform and you do not need to optimize code for a certain browser. But, you should never write about Flash because I'm guessing you have no clue what it is besides that youtube uses it to play videos.
Overall you are a terrible writer that does the tech industry and those interested in it a disservice by writing about a subject you don't fully understand. You need to do more reading and less writing because you are only misinforming.
Justin.Kerr
March 30, 2009 at 10:35am
I fixed the single typo whre I put java instead of Javascript. The rest is just trolling, and your opinion, which you are welcome to.
Morichalion
March 30, 2009 at 4:57am
... Java, Javascript and even ActiveX nothing at all to do with cloud computing. At least, nothing more than any other set of scripting or coding languages or set of browser plugins do.
On the other hand...
I don't understand why you're so freaked out about these fun little experiments being "Proof of Concept." Most programs can trace their origin back to one proof of concept or another.
You seem to be in love with flash. I can't blame you for that, it's an easy way to solve many problems one might encounter when developing web-apps. Cross-platform coding included.
Here's my problem with Flash, though:
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=23
If you don't want to follow the URL, it basically says that Flash CS4 just doesn't work at all under WINE.
Javascript, however, will allow me to code web-apps for any platform.
I think you need to get a cookie, a glass of milk, dip the cookie in the milk, eat the cookie, drink the milk, sit down and breathe for an hour, then come back.
---------------------
The world was ruled by religion, and they call it "The Dark Ages"
evride
March 30, 2009 at 6:43am
Flash is my thing, so yes, I'm in love with Flash.
Sounds like you are a noobish Linux user. Just linking to a site saying that someone wasn't able to get it working isn't real credible. Also a Linux user would know that if he or she couldn't run a program in Linux that the next best thing is to find an alternative. Well it just so happens that Adobe is developing a Flex Builder plugin for the Linux version of Eclipse. Adobe does take there time when developing stuff for Linux. I mean just look at Adobe AIR for linux. Adobe AIR for Linux just got out of beta last December, almost 10 months after it was initially released for Windows and Mac
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flexbuilder_linux.html
It's still in alpha but at least Adobe is more open than the alternative - Microsoft (Silverlight). Can't even develop for Silverlight on a Mac.
Now, about the "proof of concept" complaint. Basically there was nothing new, nothing game changing in those examples. They just show that Chrome can run Javascript faster than other browsers when specifically programmed for Chrome. Do you know the kinda market share that Chrome has? 4%. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
So basically you cannot create a Javascript heavy web app that is going to require that the user have chrome for the app to run decently well, and if your web app isn't so resource demanding you still wouldn't program specifically for Chrome because it would be a waste of effort. So like I said, pretty much this is just a plublicity stunt to get more people to switch to Chrome for it's Javascript rendering speed. I bet they got quite a few converts just from people wanting to see how fast it really did run in Chrome. Real winner here - not the writer, not us, not the internet, not Javascript developers, but Google.
Morichalion
March 30, 2009 at 8:05am
I'll just go through a few points, then I'm done.
1. Thanks for pointing out Flex, but it doesn't help me. It's not the alternative I would be looking for, as I'm more into design and animation. The fact that it took Adobe 10 months to release AIR on linux doesn't help your position. Y'might say I've weaned myself off Flash in the time since I dropped Windows. Linux is cheaper. :)
2. The javascript ray-racer was definitely news to me.
3. You're done screaming about the typo in the original article/blog post? Seemed you were more concerned about Mr. Kerr's momentary failure than any looming corporate entity gaining or losing marketshare.
4. About your 'noobish' comment. Go get a cookie, a glass of milk, dip the cookie in
the milk, eat the cookie, drink the milk, sit down and breathe for an
hour, then come back. AFTER you've cooled down enough for simple civility.
Edit: Never said flash was bad, even mentioned that there's reasons to like it. My point was that, from the content creation standpoint, it had failings compared to Javascript.
--------------------------
The world was ruled by religion, and they call it "The Dark Ages"
