Fractals. They're porn for techies. Well, truth be told, porn is porn for techies. But fractals aren't far behind. Fractals are far more interesting, at least in the long run. And you can look at fractals at the office without worrying if the boss will walk by. If you're a techie, it's time you visited Google Labs project that …
Firefox blew chunks before finishing and was realllly slow. Safari finished and was fast. The ol' standard if-it-won't-work-in-firefox-it'll-work-in-safari adage holds true.
So why am I using (a Safari skinned) Firefox rather than Safari? I swap between them once one pisses me off sufficiently enough to make the switch (bookmarks and all that nonsense). Firefox is almost at that point.....
I guess that rendering time depends on your screen size. This 2.66GHz Lynnfield is far from snappy rendering 3.3 million pixels.
With fractals, as always, very cool.
Missed a trick..
"Well, truth be told, pr0n is porn for techies."
Woo-fu****g-hoo. This is a perfect example of how laziness breeds complexity and inefficiency. Fractal generation generally consists of one for loop executed inside another, covering each pixel on the screen, with no inter-iteration dependency. Yes, you can separate them out over different cores for speed using Web Workers, but why bother? Do a bit of reading and discover decent C/C++ compilers like the ones from Intel and Sun (maybe even GCC these days). These will both spot such loops for you and do the same thing with threads at run time without you ever having to think about it in your coding. And it will probably run significantly quicker as well. And that's before you start contemplating bending it to fit on a GPU.
Okay, so this is just an eye candy demo of no major consequence. But to say:
The only benefits of Ruby, PHP, and other such languages is that they provide rapid development enabling a service to be brought to market quicker. The labour costs are cheap too. That is an important commercial consideration. But if your service expands and your electricity and inventory bills start heading in to the millions (or billions if you've been very successful indeed), the costs of that initial laziness start looking very high indeed.
Of course many web traditionalists point to their great saviour, the JIT compiler. Sure, a JIT compiler does produce executable object code which runs modestly quickly. But CPUs are complicated beasts these days with pipelines, caches, etc. I'd put good money on most JIT compiler's object code not being as fast as that produced by, for example, Intel's native compiler. Intel build the chips. The writers of TraceMonkey, V8, etc. didn't. If your JIT compiler is 5% less efficient than a natively written app, for a really big data centre that could amount to millions in electricity and inventory bills a year, every year . You have to wonder how much properly written native application code you could get written for that much money.
Very pretty. Is there no limit to what can be done with canvas?
Using Opera 11.1, the rendering is very much limited to a single thread. No mention on the Web-Workers documentation it's intended for Chrome only though. What gives?
Gosh thats novel
and yes it was a bit slower
Which browsers implemented SVG in 1999?
Plug-ins began to appear in 1999.
That's well unimpressive.
I could write a program to draw the Mandelbrot set in less time than it takes that page to render.
How did they manage to make something so simple so complicated and slow.
You don't get it, do you, it's a proof of concept of the technology. No one *needs* a Mandelbrot set program, so it might as well be written in HTML5 as anything else. It's the graphical equivalent of a "Hello, world!" program.
Fun proof of concept. I'm wondering if they'll add a rubber-band zoom, it might make the zooming process a bit more usable on slow-arse devices like this toy Googleslab.
Been there, done that
I once coded the Mandelbrot algorithm in Postscript. I wasn't very popular when I hogged the department's Laserwriter for over 24 hours just to print one page!
Only 2nd time ever I have seen Firefox crash.
You've only used Firefox 3 times? What a lightweight.
Been there done that, omg its slow?
A trifle dull
There are some much neater Google Labs "experiments" here (especially the Body explorer IMHO):
Latest version of Chrome might be required. Can't say for sure.
Great waste of time!
I loved this. On my 4-year old Mac Mini it took about 10 seconds to render, but I remember the days of Fractint and watching the image build up about 1 line every 5 seconds! Makes you wonder what else they can do with HTML 5.
Yes, it is.
Firefox fail, Minefield magnificent...
I tried it in Firefox 3.6.13 and found it to be practically unusable. Occasionally reporting 2million flops/second max.
I tried it in Firefox 4.0b11pre (aka Minefield, about 12 days out of date, update downloading as I type) and found it to be awesomely fast. It regularly reported over 100million flops/second, with a max of 368million that I observed.
It's a lovely advert for how much faster Firefox 4 is going to be.
Just updated to the 4.0b12pre 2011-02-07 version of Minefield and it's even quicker - now regularly reporting over 1000m flops/sec. Wow.
I was bored of fractals long before I even watched porn.
It's a beautiful idea because of the simplicity, but that simplicity means you should just say wow and then go and learn something else. (Unless you're going to use them)
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Antique Code Show World of Warcraft then and now: From Orcs and Humans to Warlords of Draenor
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...