Try Love in your Browser

Showcase your libraries, tools and other projects that help your fellow love users.
User avatar
pygy
Citizen
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:06 pm

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by pygy »

What about porting LÖVE to Google Native Client rather than writing a custom plugin?
Hermaphroditism is not a crime. -- LSB Superstar

All code published with this account is licensed under the Romantic WTF public license unless otherwise stated.
User avatar
bartbes
Sex machine
Posts: 4946
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:35 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by bartbes »

Well, it is nowhere near done yet, so, we'll just wait for now. I might just do something when my holidays start.
User avatar
pygy
Citizen
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:06 pm

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by pygy »

Sweeet :-)

With Google behind it, NaCl should have a larger install base than what we could get for LÖVE by ourselves :-)
Hermaphroditism is not a crime. -- LSB Superstar

All code published with this account is licensed under the Romantic WTF public license unless otherwise stated.
Chris016
Prole
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:58 am

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by Chris016 »

There is a flash compiler that is free, Its called Flex SDK, Which is actually Actionscript 3 compiler free of charge and there is a free IDE to use with it called FlashDevelop, And i was thinking of embedding Lua Alchemy into it. Havent had time but its possible. Having ActionScript interpret Lua would be really slow.

Javascript is ok but javascript interpreting lua would be massive speed drop. But if we make a lua to javascript converter. It would be faster then javascript interpreting lua.
User avatar
TechnoCat
Inner party member
Posts: 1611
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:31 am
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by TechnoCat »

Chris016 wrote:Javascript is ok but javascript interpreting lua would be massive speed drop. But if we make a lua to javascript converter. It would be faster then javascript interpreting lua.
http://code.google.com/p/lov8/
User avatar
Luiji
Party member
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by Luiji »

We need to retain a wiki category for ports.
Good bye.
Chris016
Prole
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:58 am

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by Chris016 »

TechnoCat wrote:
Chris016 wrote:Javascript is ok but javascript interpreting lua would be massive speed drop. But if we make a lua to javascript converter. It would be faster then javascript interpreting lua.
http://code.google.com/p/lov8/
thats pretty cool, But it not what i really meant. V8 is pretty cool and all but i mean a Love Canvas project. Where we convert love lua to javascript canvas. Theres a box2d in Javascript canvas. And html 5 audio. Im thinking we could look into something like that.
User avatar
Luiji
Party member
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by Luiji »

Doesn't sound over-complicated, except that they are indesisive about supported formats (because of, in fact, Apple).
Good bye.
Chris016
Prole
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:58 am

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by Chris016 »

Javascript in Chrome or Safari are the fastest i hear. But it is still not like native fast. Thats why you i see it as you will probably need to optimize it. So thats why maybe writting a Love Canvas wouldnt be a bad idea. That uses the same kind of api as Lov8 does because it seems to work really good as i just downloaded it.
User avatar
Jasoco
Inner party member
Posts: 3725
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:35 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Re: Try Love in your Browser

Post by Jasoco »

Well, Apple's against OGG/VORBIS because of the ownership. It may be open source but only until 2012 or so. Then it will need licenses. Mozilla is against H.264 because of the fee they'd have to pay to use it. Which is why WebM was invented, but once again Apple doesn't want to use it. I'm afraid we'll never get one single format. So we'll have to support them all for now. Personally I think it's stupid. There's hundreds because people keep coming up with new ways to make files smaller while keeping quality. But every time you turn around a new method is created and a new codec is born. This is also the main problem with DVD's. They were invented back in the days of MPEG-2. Which is so old, it only allows for 2 hours on a DVD disc. An H.264 file of the same length takes up a lot less space. But they can't switch DVD's over to H.264 because then nothing would be able to play it. Same with TV signals. TV stations could save so much bandwidth and give much better video quality if TV used a better codec, but since modern digital TV signals are once again MPEG-2, we can't switch to something else because once again, nothing would know how to use it. HD signals and Blu-Rays use better compression these days, but still, in a few years we'll look back and wish we could upgrade the HD signal to whatever the hot codec is out at the time.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 66 guests