Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


HTML5 or Java?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
39 replies to this topic

#1 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 910

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:09 AM

I have some experience with Python and Actionscript 2.0. Was thinking of making a simple browser based game, say a Chess Variant (with knights, dragons and spells etc) that has a chatroom next to it, for 2 players.

Which is the better language to learn to do this? Java or HTML5?

Sponsor:

#2 SimonForsman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5468

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:19 AM

I have some experience with Python and Actionscript 2.0. Was thinking of making a simple browser based game, say a Chess Variant (with knights, dragons and spells etc) that has a chatroom next to it, for 2 players.

Which is the better language to learn to do this? Java or HTML5?


I'd go with flash(client) + python(server) since you know those allready and flash is installed on almost all systems (Java and HTML5 capable browsers are not as common)
I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

#3 Sage Gerard   Members   -  Reputation: 276

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:22 AM

To add on, HTML is *not* for game development. It is largely used to define a layout for web pages and link other HTML documents together. Additional technologies like Flash can be embedded in pages for games (as Simon mentioned), but you could honestly use just about anything you wish server-side as long as you have a set standard to allow clients to talk to the server.

#4 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 910

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:39 AM

To add on, HTML is *not* for game development. It is largely used to define a layout for web pages and link other HTML documents together. Additional technologies like Flash can be embedded in pages for games (as Simon mentioned), but you could honestly use just about anything you wish server-side as long as you have a set standard to allow clients to talk to the server.


HTML5 is meant to compete with Flash and can be used to make games.

E.g. http://html5games.com/

#5 Sage Gerard   Members   -  Reputation: 276

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:40 AM


To add on, HTML is *not* for game development. It is largely used to define a layout for web pages and link other HTML documents together. Additional technologies like Flash can be embedded in pages for games (as Simon mentioned), but you could honestly use just about anything you wish server-side as long as you have a set standard to allow clients to talk to the server.


HTML5 is meant to compete with Flash and can be used to make games.

E.g. http://html5games.com/


Huh, I stand corrected. Although, I am curious as to why W3 would step away from the philosophy of separating concepts into other syntaxes. Sorry, I'm seeing this in a web dev perspective.

#6 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 910

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:44 AM


I have some experience with Python and Actionscript 2.0. Was thinking of making a simple browser based game, say a Chess Variant (with knights, dragons and spells etc) that has a chatroom next to it, for 2 players.

Which is the better language to learn to do this? Java or HTML5?


I'd go with flash(client) + python(server) since you know those allready and flash is installed on almost all systems (Java and HTML5 capable browsers are not as common)



I haven't tried writing multiplayer games in Flash or Python. But I have been told that if I decide to upgrade/improve my game in the future, I won't get as far as I would be if I were to use Java. True? Google seems to think Java is the future for browser based apps.

Well, the iPad doesn't support Flash. :(

And I think Flash isn't as powerful as Java? (not sure about vs HTML5) I thought this way because all of the big browser based games seems to be written in Java while those written in Flash seems to be on a much smaller scale.



#7 Sage Gerard   Members   -  Reputation: 276

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:54 AM

I haven't tried writing multiplayer games in Flash or Python. But I have been told that if I decide to upgrade/improve my game in the future, I won't get as far as I would be if I were to use Java. True? Google seems to think Java is the future for browser based apps.

Well, the iPad doesn't support Flash. :(

And I think Flash isn't as powerful as Java? (not sure about vs HTML5) I thought this way because all of the big browser based games seems to be written in Java while those written in Flash seems to be on a much smaller scale.



I don't think you will be in hot water if you chose to use Java, but I won't speak for a market, either. Posted Image I do know that Runescape has expanded and prospered well using Java. I at least would call it a viable option!

I wouldn't be as worried about the question of "power". What works for you? See how your options relate to your needs and work habits. Anything W3 introduces has a tendency to be approachable, but Simon's mention of HTML5 not being widely and fully supported (for a good damn long time) will be a bugger.

#8 Serapth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5009

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:59 AM

Java isn't supported on the iPad either; nor is Silverlight nor Unity Web Player.



So, if iPad is among your targets, and you want it browser based, HTML 5 is your only choice.



That said, developing in HTML5 seems like a gigantic step backwards, but then I really do not like Javascript.

#9 Mayple   Members   -  Reputation: 187

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 July 2011 - 12:35 PM

HTML5 for the chatroom, with FLASH for the game. FLASH for the simple fact that it will handle multiple players if your making an multiple enviroment. HTML5 + asynchrounous users = very bad tech right now.


I usually just give my 2 cents, but since most of the people I meet are stubborn I give a 1$ so my advice isn't lost via exchange rate.


#10 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 910

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 July 2011 - 07:35 AM

Thanks guys! I'll stay away from HTML5 for now. Java it is then...

#11 Antheus   Members   -  Reputation: 2385

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 July 2011 - 07:48 AM

Which is the better language to learn to do this? Java or HTML5?


Flash aka ActionScript.

Client-side Java is either abandoned, obsolete or deprecated and either lacks even the most basic facilities (such as any meaningful sound/media capabilities) or is difficult to present seamlessly (security warnings aplenty). In addition, it's poorly supported in practice. Despite cited 60% install base about a third of PC users that will be able to run the actual applets without problems. Browsers on other OSes are not very supportive of Java.

For more practical issues, just dealing with bitmaps will be an incredible pain compared to one-line approach built into Flash.


Yes, it can be done. Yes, it has been done. Both, Java and HTML5. But just because chainsaws can be juggled, it doesn't mean it's a good idea or a good starting point. Start with 3 rubber balls, there will be much less pain.

HTML5 for the chatroom

HTML5 chatroom either needs to swallow the whole long-poll overhead and complications on both, client and server, or use "true" HTML5 web sockets which are barely supported on a handful of browsers, but are barely adopted. Either way, it requires considerably more complication on both, client and server than needed.

It's good for experimentation or if one uses a third-party solution, but not worth the effort to roll custom version.

#12 Mayple   Members   -  Reputation: 187

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 July 2011 - 11:29 AM


Which is the better language to learn to do this? Java or HTML5?


Flash aka ActionScript.

Client-side Java is either abandoned, obsolete or deprecated and either lacks even the most basic facilities (such as any meaningful sound/media capabilities) or is difficult to present seamlessly (security warnings aplenty). In addition, it's poorly supported in practice. Despite cited 60% install base about a third of PC users that will be able to run the actual applets without problems. Browsers on other OSes are not very supportive of Java.

For more practical issues, just dealing with bitmaps will be an incredible pain compared to one-line approach built into Flash.


Yes, it can be done. Yes, it has been done. Both, Java and HTML5. But just because chainsaws can be juggled, it doesn't mean it's a good idea or a good starting point. Start with 3 rubber balls, there will be much less pain.

HTML5 for the chatroom

HTML5 chatroom either needs to swallow the whole long-poll overhead and complications on both, client and server, or use "true" HTML5 web sockets which are barely supported on a handful of browsers, but are barely adopted. Either way, it requires considerably more complication on both, client and server than needed.

It's good for experimentation or if one uses a third-party solution, but not worth the effort to roll custom version.



Canvas + Ajax Comet Chat = Profit. Theres nothing hard about it, espcially when your HTML5 call is using a phploader.

-Mayple
I usually just give my 2 cents, but since most of the people I meet are stubborn I give a 1$ so my advice isn't lost via exchange rate.


#13 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 910

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 July 2011 - 02:54 PM

Flash aka ActionScript.

Client-side Java is either abandoned, obsolete or deprecated and either lacks even the most basic facilities (such as any meaningful sound/media capabilities) or is difficult to present seamlessly (security warnings aplenty). In addition, it's poorly supported in practice. Despite cited 60% install base about a third of PC users that will be able to run the actual applets without problems. Browsers on other OSes are not very supportive of Java.

For more practical issues, just dealing with bitmaps will be an incredible pain compared to one-line approach built into Flash.


Yes, it can be done. Yes, it has been done. Both, Java and HTML5. But just because chainsaws can be juggled, it doesn't mean it's a good idea or a good starting point. Start with 3 rubber balls, there will be much less pain..


Now you have convinced me to switch to Flash.

I remember Flash gamedev having A LOT of support because of the sheer amount of developers out there and tutorials. Also, it is a lot easier to work with graphics in Flash than in a "proper" language like Java.

#14 wolfscaptain   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 July 2011 - 04:38 AM

Actually latest browsers have decent support for HTML5 and friends (WebGL, Typed Arrays, Web Sockets).

I don't get this "HTML5 is a step backwords" notion.
Why would you ever choose plugins (that are slow and take an amazing ammount of syrtem resources) over builtin functionality?

#15 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 910

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 July 2011 - 05:11 AM

Actually latest browsers have decent support for HTML5 and friends (WebGL, Typed Arrays, Web Sockets).

I don't get this "HTML5 is a step backwords" notion.
Why would you ever choose plugins (that are slow and take an amazing ammount of syrtem resources) over builtin functionality?



Now I'm swerving towards HTML5!

I have been googling about Flash vs Java vs HTML5. It seems that Java is on the decline?!

And big names (including the iPad) has started to abandon Flash, Scribd for example - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/06/scribd_ditches_flash_for_html5/

I guess....HTML5 is the future?



#16 Sage Gerard   Members   -  Reputation: 276

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 July 2011 - 05:55 AM

I guess....HTML5 is the future?



Having some game code exist as data to be displayed in browsers AND allowing JS to take advantage of local hardware acceleration makes using W3 languages seem hitting the jackpot for both devs and players alike.

Thanks guys! I'll stay away from HTML5 for now. Java it is then...
...
Now you have convinced me to switch to Flash.
...
Now I'm swerving towards HTML5!



It's great that you want to get the tool most relevant to your project, but don't let your final decision ultimately be determined by what we tell you. Weigh the options and make your own call on what works best.

#17 Antheus   Members   -  Reputation: 2385

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 July 2011 - 07:54 AM

Actually latest browsers have decent support for HTML5 and friends (WebGL, Typed Arrays, Web Sockets).




Considering this is for beginners and OP has experience with ActionScript and Python, where would you point them? Where do they start? Which wikis should they start with? With step-by-step tutorials on HTML5+WebGL+TypedArrays+WebSockets to follow? Which video tutorials on how to set up the project? How do I play a sound in HTML5?

There is 10 years od tutorials for Flash that still work today. No changes needed due to Adobe's dedication to backward compatibility. There is an IDE and a graphic editor.

Why would you ever choose plugins (that are slow and take an amazing ammount of syrtem resources) over builtin functionality?

Um...

Make this in HTML5. Today. Not in 3 years, not on some fictional future browser. Something that will work, at least, on all same systems and browsers as Flash does.

Why would one choose Flash?

I don't get this "HTML5 is a step backwords" notion.

Because it makes no sense to take a huge step backwards.

#18 Sirisian   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1557

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 July 2011 - 08:14 AM

Why would you ever choose plugins (that are slow and take an amazing ammount of syrtem resources) over builtin functionality?

Make this in HTML5. Today. Not in 3 years, not on some fictional future browser. Something that will work, at least, on all same systems and browsers as Flash does.

Can't tell if serious. context.drawImage is all you'd need. I will point out that I tend to use the Typed Array spec, but it's not fully supported in all browsers. To put it in perspective I made this in a few minutes for someone. I don't tend to program for browsers though. I program for the specs and submit bugs if something doesn't work. (Which is the correct way to program for the web). To make something work in all modern browsers you have to make a few browser specific changes. :mellow: I prefer HTML 5 over working with Flash.

#19 Antheus   Members   -  Reputation: 2385

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 July 2011 - 08:25 AM

Can't tell if serious. context.drawImage is all you'd need.


Do it.

Play the game to final level, then do that.

Because Gemcraft was my favorite 2 years ago when it came out. Not in "the future".

To put it in perspective I made this in a few minutes for someone

Not criticizing the work, but where is anti-aliasing, alpha-blended particle fountains, 1000+ live actors and full-screen shader effects? Where is the sound (note that I frequently mention sound when it comes to HTML5)?

But this should about putting Flash to shame. Where are the demos that make Gemcraft look like a 1980's arcade?

To make something work in all modern browsers you have to make a few browser specific changes.

And ebola may be worse than common cold.

#20 landlocked   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 12 July 2011 - 08:37 AM

Go HTML 5, honestly. It's a native framework to the browser and your users won't be bound to proprietary plug-ins. Also, your markup will run about as fast as the browser allows rather than the efficiency of the plug-in developers. With a few AJAX calls to get the objects you need to draw I honestly can't see any cleaner and simpler way to get a game like environment in the browser. Your overhead will increase with the other plug-in languages as well. Basically, for the time it takes to get something on screen, HTML 5 is the best way to go. Only thing flash and Java improve upon is that it's plug-ins are supported on older browsers.
Always strive to be better than yourself.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS