It uses some HTML5 tags, but the engine is done with javascript.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/01/google-html5-quake/
Flash did quake 1 back in 2007.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TKGNS1N1yo
And quake 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH4p8wzqtuA
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Eases Up on Restrictions on Interpreted Code in iPhone Developer Agreement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It uses some HTML5 tags, but the engine is done with javascript.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/01/google-html5-quake/
Flash did quake 1 back in 2007.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TKGNS1N1yo
And quake 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH4p8wzqtuA
I'm just amused by what I set in bold. "Eroding the user experience"? Isn't that what AT&T is doing?
I hope you are joking. Do you know that almost every game, even on consoles, contain interpreted code because it makes for a BETTER user experience. It's not about lazyness - it's about using the right tools for the right job. And there are a million reasons for using interpreted code in certain portions of a game. Why do you think that all of the world's leading game engines contain managed languages for certain portions of the game? It's NOT about lazyness, even if Steve 'Godfather' Jobs wants you to think so.
Release Candidate by 2012, which is a guarantee that all major browsers will have release candidate support by then. Candidate Recommendation is a means of ``we've moved on to newer projects and if you haven't reached this status by then you're behind, again.''
Elaborate how an interpreted bit of code versus a compiled bit of code improves the User Experience.
Good to hear that talented Flash devs will finally be able to create/distribute iPhone/iPad apps at the appstore.
The User Experience is certainly improved if the game actually ships, which it probably wouldn't do if the all the game logic had to be written in a compiled language like C++.
I still don't understand why people can't grasp this concept. Games have been written this way for years - the game logic for Quake (1996) is all written in QuakeC - an interpreted language!
pOS development is just as over hyped as the devices. there are MUCH better options for developers.
No, it doesn't at all mean that Apple's tools are sub-standard. In fact, they're excellent, and still I can imagine why many developers would rather use something else.
For example, suppose you're a long-time Flash developer, but you'd like to get in on the lucrative iPhone/iPad app ecosystem. To write apps for iOS 4, you'd have to 1) buy a Mac (if you don't already have one), since X-Code isn't available for Windows, and 2) learn Cocoa Touch: an entirely different framework in an entirely different language. Now suppose that I'm a long-time developer for Mac OS X, so I already have a Mac and years of experience using Cocoa. For me, the transition to Cocoa Touch is pretty smooth, but for you, it represents a major commitment of time and money. That's a significant competitive disadvantage for you.
Point being: X-Code is an awesome development environment, and yet still there are good reasons why some developers would rather choose something they already know well.
And so yeah, maybe Apple's policies end up making things harder for Flash developers, and maybe in the long run this will have a chilling effect on app development for the iOS platform---we'll see. But Apple doesn't want developers using meta-platforms because it has a painful history of third-party development tools hampering its ability to innovate its own platform. For better or for worse, it's not willing to go down that path again.
But yeah, HyperCard was awesome, and I'd love to see something like it for the iPad.
That isn't much different from any transition into any new platform. Whether you'll want to go to Windows, Linux, Android, Java, etc. there are a number of frameworks you'll have to get familiar with. The language is usually the least of this. Good developers can do the transition fairly easily and do so a number of times in their career. That doesn't really tell you anything about the tools.
The XCode tools are pretty good but they feel a bit old to me. I've done a lot of Java development and XCode doesn't really stack up well against Eclipse or IntelliJ Idea, which I prefer. It feels like going 10 years back in time, and the Objective C syntax seems decidedly archaic although the features of the language aren't bad. I'd much rather use Ruby, which is similar in spirit to Objective C but with a much nicer syntax. Also, closures and properties were a part of Ruby from the start whereas they've been added on later on Objective C (and it shows). In fact, closures haven't made it to the iPhone scene yet but I've read that they'll be part of iOS 4.
You should try some other tools just for the fun of it. Builds character. Familiarity is part of it, of course, but Apple could take a few pointers from Visual Studio, Eclipse, and Idea. I was actually surprised that you have to build the code before getting error messages in Xcode. That's so last millennium
I think that Apple should apply their own philosophy on their tools and their language. Modernize Xcode and use a nice, statically typed, multiparadigm language with loads of sugar and a garbage collector such as a Scala variant. Now THAT would be awesome.
Or at least give people the option of building compilers for such languages. Apple may fear other languages and other tools but they are effectively hampering the innovation themselves.
Not gonna happen, I know
That being said, I get their stance on Flash but the collateral damage is significant.
Macsmurf, have you tried MacRuby? I'm just curious what you think of it whether it makes OS X development easier.
Never mind the fact, the guy is complaining about Xcode which is designed for ObjC/C/ObjC++/C++ and not Java. People who compare Eclipse to XCode and come from Java backgrounds should stick to Eclipse and Java.
It sure would be nice to be able to deploy Flash apps as appstore apps.
For example, I created a statistics calculator in Flash and compiled it as an AIR app. (my wife teaches stats in college and it saves her a lot of time)
The same app could be very easily compiled as an iPhone app, but there's no way to distribute it right now. There's no way I'm going to rewrite the app in a different language.
Not sure I see how Apple's position in this matter is good for anyone but Apple.
For example, I created a statistics calculator in Flash and compiled it as an AIR app. (my wife teaches stats in college and it saves her a lot of time)
The same app could be very easily compiled as an iPhone app, but there's no way to distribute it right now. There's no way I'm going to rewrite the app in a different language.
Not sure I see how Apple's position in this matter is good for anyone but Apple.
That isn't much different from any transition into any new platform. Whether you'll want to go to Windows, Linux, Android, Java, etc. there are a number of frameworks you'll have to get familiar with. The language is usually the least of this. Good developers can do the transition fairly easily and do so a number of times in their career. That doesn't really tell you anything about the tools.
The XCode tools are pretty good but they feel a bit old to me. I've done a lot of Java development and XCode doesn't really stack up well against Eclipse or IntelliJ Idea, which I prefer. It feels like going 10 years back in time, and the Objective C syntax seems decidedly archaic although the features of the language aren't bad. I'd much rather use Ruby, which is similar in spirit to Objective C but with a much nicer syntax. Also, closures and properties were a part of Ruby from the start whereas they've been added on later on Objective C (and it shows). In fact, closures haven't made it to the iPhone scene yet but I've read that they'll be part of iOS 4.
You should try some other tools just for the fun of it. Builds character. Familiarity is part of it, of course, but Apple could take a few pointers from Visual Studio, Eclipse, and Idea. I was actually surprised that you have to build the code before getting error messages in Xcode. That's so last millennium
I think that Apple should apply their own philosophy on their tools and their language. Modernize Xcode and use a nice, statically typed, multiparadigm language with loads of sugar and a garbage collector such as a Scala variant. Now THAT would be awesome.
Or at least give people the option of building compilers for such languages. Apple may fear other languages and other tools but they are effectively hampering the innovation themselves.
Not gonna happen, I know
That being said, I get their stance on Flash but the collateral damage is significant.
The syntax is one of the biggest self documenting features of ObjC. I can't stand Java's C++ heritage of syntax.
Why in the hell do you think Apple would go from Dynamically typed ObjC to Statically typed languages, ala C++ when they just got rid of Carbon? NeXT was designed with the deliberate decision to take the Mach microkernel [XNU hybrid now] and give it that beautifully message based, dynamically typed/loosely typed, dynamic run-time ObjC to give it an advantage in MVC and it's attractive ability of building applications more rapidly. LLVM makes the performance of the entire system more responsive with each release of the Clang.
Sorry, but anyone who finds C++ and Java a pleasure [oddly, the major architects on Java came from NeXT and tried to give it as much of the benefits of ObjC/Openstep with what James Gosling wanted--a better C++] and somehow opines on Apple making their life completely simplified by just doing the heavy lifting and allowing you to just change a bit here and there, yet get all that Cocoa offers hasn't a clue the design of Cocoa, ObjC or OS X.
Must have hit a nerve. I primarily use Idea for Java, Ruby, and Scala, which are all supported by the IDE. I find that the most useful features in the IDE are not language specific.
Java is just a language I use to get paid. It's not a pedigree. You seem confused.
No, you're so off the mark and know so little about what you're dissing that you're in China.
"I think that Apple should apply their own philosophy on their tools and their language. Modernize Xcode and use a nice, statically typed, multiparadigm language with loads of sugar and a garbage collector such as a Scala variant. Now THAT would be awesome. "
Objective-C can be used with any system with GCC or Clang, the IDE is a non-issue. I agree that xCode could use some improvements, but making a VS clone isn't the answer.
Objective-C is multi-paradigm. The Strongly vs Static preference is entirely up to the user.
Objective-C does have garbage collection, that and Garbage Collection is not a language feature.
Syntactic Sugar adds NOTHING to a programming language. Objective-C is meant to be SIMPLE, include the bare bones and nothing more. It makes very clean code compared to C#/C++.
Get your head out of the sand.
I'm curious to why you think it is self-documenting at all. I find it hard on the eyes.
For example, I prefer
to
I prefer static types so I threw that in there since it obviously isn't gonna happen anyway. I'm fine with them adopting Ruby if dynamic types are their preference. That, of course, will also never happen.
That's a very long sentence. I don't find Java a pleasure, which is why I have never said that Java is a pleasure. Java has its own set of problems and Apple should stay far away from it internally, IMHO. I was talking about IDEs. An IDE is not the same as a language.
OK. Please enlighten me
What's with the straw man? I thought you were educating me?
Anyway, I never said I wanted Xcode to be a clone of VS. I just mentioned that Apple could incorporate some of the better features from other IDEs. I realize that suggesting good ideas exists outside of Apple is akin to blashemy for some
I dont consider dynamic/static types to be in different paradigms. I was talking about a language that encourages both imperative and functional programming.
I disagree, but I do agree that the dot notation sugar that Obj C uses with properties is pretty orthogonal to the rest of the language. That doesn't mean it can't be done right. In fact, I consider the properties themselves sugar. If you think they are a horrible idea you don't have to use them but I think they save a lot of writing without obscuring the code.
OK. Please enlighten me
Its not worth the effort.
A, Its hard to fill a cup that is already full. (Or in this case its hard to fill a cup with no lid)
B, you know absolutely nothing about the language, as shown by your example above.
C, you accuse me of not accepting other ideas yet you do EXACTLY the same thing.
What makes your arguments even more dodgy than an aeroplane made out of cardboard is your example above. You have NO CLUE about the Objective-C Language.