Google has recently set the ABI for their NaCl: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/j46sz/google_native_client_05_released_with_stable_abi/

When a language becomes usable online it gets much more visibility. I don't know if NaCl will have success (maybe not. I think Mozilla devs don't like NaCl), but it looks like one of the few (best, only?) ways to use D in browsers. Fast games are one possible purposes for D in NaCl, like a D port of this unfinished game:
https://github.com/emezeske/digbuild

Someone is planning of a Mono support for NaCl: http://www.mono-project.com/Release_Notes_Mono_2.10#Google_Native_Client_Support

I think some person is willing to install the NaCl plug-in if it allows to run nice enough games in the browser. D is an acceptably good language to write fast games.

Bye,
bearophile

On 01-08-2011 18:58, bearophile wrote:
> Google has recently set the ABI for their NaCl:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/j46sz/google_native_client_05_released_with_stable_abi/
>
> When a language becomes usable online it gets much more visibility. I don't know if NaCl will have success (maybe not. I think Mozilla devs don't like NaCl), but it looks like one of the few (best, only?) ways to use D in browsers. Fast games are one possible purposes for D in NaCl, like a D port of this unfinished game:
> https://github.com/emezeske/digbuild
>
> Someone is planning of a Mono support for NaCl:
> http://www.mono-project.com/Release_Notes_Mono_2.10#Google_Native_Client_Support
>
> I think some person is willing to install the NaCl plug-in if it allows to run nice enough games in the browser. D is an acceptably good language to write fast games.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

I agree; it would be a great idea to have NaCl support in D. With Mono having support too, the interoperability possibilities would be fantastic.

- Alex

This was for the digitalmars.D newsgroup, of course. It's the new bug in the web interface.

Bye,
bearophile

This still sounds as utterly useless as it always has been.

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j170it$1bib$1@digitalmars.com...
> This still sounds as utterly useless as it always has been.

Client-side scripting that throws away that god-awful JS crap being utterly useless?

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Client-side scripting that throws away that god-awful JS crap being utterly useless?

As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually throw away JS! I've never actually used Google Native Client, but looking through the docs, I can't find any way to set event handlers or otherwise interact with the html.

You still need to use Javascript to actually enhance the web page. (if you are writing an app that isn't a web page, for the love of God, please don't force it into the browser.) Maybe this will change as it matures, but that's the *first* thing I would have focused on (and indeed did in my weekend browser, although it's a different story I guess because mine is more like an html widget than plugin.)


Also, I can't find a Firefox plugin or any other browser support. It looks like the Google thing is Google-only, and opt in by the individual users at that. In other words, utterly useless on real world websites because it won't actually work for 99% of users.

The networking api looks pathetic too, and I doubt that will change, since web browser security is supposed to be maintained here.

They added audio and video, so it might be usable for writing bad games, but even that is poor - they don't let you access the operating system.



It's just not a really compelling offering, even if it were ubiquitious, which,
again it isn't. It is apparently only available
on the worst browser on the market. Then, add on my belief
that javascript is fairly rare in a good site anyway (do most your
work on the server and you have a more useful environment and it
degrades more easily), and I say: useless.

It allows to run code efficiently (in my tests something like 5-10% slower than native code), and it's supposed to be (or to become) safe. There are plans for usage of the 3D GPU and audio. It looks a good idea for games, and more.

Bye,
bearophile

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote in message news:j17g6i$2a63$1@digitalmars.com...
> It allows to run code efficiently (in my tests something like 5-10% slower than native code), and it's supposed to be (or to become) safe. There are plans for usage of the 3D GPU and audio. It looks a good idea for games, and more.
>

There's no such thing as "good idea for in-browser games". The whole premise of in-browser multimeda is nothing short of pure idiocy, no matter how fast it is.

"Adam Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j17fi9$280r$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Client-side scripting that throws away that god-awful JS crap being utterly useless?
>
> As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually throw away JS! I've never actually used Google Native Client, but looking through the docs, I can't find any way to set event handlers or otherwise interact with the html.
>

Really? So what the hell *does* it do? Blow cycles just for the fuck of it?


> You still need to use Javascript to actually enhance the web page. (if you are writing an app that isn't a web page, for the love of God, please don't force it into the browser.) Maybe this will change as it matures, but that's the *first* thing I would have focused on (and indeed did in my weekend browser, although it's a different story I guess because mine is more like an html widget than plugin.)
>
>
> Also, I can't find a Firefox plugin or any other browser support. It looks like the Google thing is Google-only, and opt in by the individual users at that. In other words, utterly useless on real world websites because it won't actually work for 99% of users.
>
> The networking api looks pathetic too, and I doubt that will change, since web browser security is supposed to be maintained here.
>
> They added audio and video, so it might be usable for writing bad games, but even that is poor - they don't let you access the operating system.
>
>
>
> It's just not a really compelling offering, even if it were ubiquitious,
> which,
> again it isn't. It is apparently only available
> on the worst browser on the market. Then, add on my belief
> that javascript is fairly rare in a good site anyway (do most your
> work on the server and you have a more useful environment and it
> degrades more easily), and I say: useless.

I see.

From what I can tell, it's Google's alternative to Flash; they want to make crappy games on it.

Consider that the first thing they ported to it, again, just like their javascript nonsense, was Quake. (I think Google loves Javascript too much to let it go anyway.)

The API has a lot of graphics and audio stuff too which reinforces this.