
Show HN: An animated graphing calculator implemented in a pixel shader - CarterFeldman
https://fofpx.com/?pid=graphingcalculator
======
murgindrag
Neat!

Some context would be helpful. Is this a commercial product? Open source? For
kids? For adults? I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at, except that I've got
a neat thing to do with my kid that will take up a few hours, at least, and a
superior competitor to Desmos for kids who like coding.

Assuming it's up tomorrow, not behind a $10,000 paywall, etc. That's why
context would be helpful.

Seems similar to p5.js in spirit, but focused on a different type of problem.
With p5.js, I can build from what I wrote, and toss it up on my own web site.

~~~
speps
Why the extensive questioning? It's really just an example of how to do a
graph in a pixel shader using the [https://fofpx.com](https://fofpx.com)
platform. It seems to be similar to ShaderToy but with a different language
(JS).

~~~
murgindrag
Because:

1) I think what's being shown IS the fofpx.com platform. This platform has
four demos, of which this is one. The others look neat too!

2) The platform looks awesome, and I'd like to use it myself for things I'm
doing with kids learning math.

3) To do that, I'd need to have some basic, minimal background. For example,
if I plan an activity for next week, will the web page still be up and work
the same? Without that, it's not really practical to use.

4) The point of a Show HN is exactly to solicit feedback. I think any serious
potential user would have the same sorts of questions. Tossing an FAQ or
similar up of fofpx.com would be quick-and-easy.

5) The next step beyond that would be accounts, so people can save their work
and come back to it.

~~~
sukilot
It's a toy demo.

If you want a full featured product, use Processing or Mathematica.

[https://processing.org/examples/](https://processing.org/examples/)

~~~
murgindrag
I use processing all the time.

This is different. I don't see this replacing processing, but it'd be a good
supplement.

------
ecaradec
It's interesting how different solving issues in a pixel sharer is.

------
dag11
This is cool! The Y axis seems flipped, however.

~~~
blt
yes, I get this too.

------
bzb4
Webm is not compatible with iPhone. Can’t you make it output standard mp4
files?

~~~
murgindrag
Animated GIFs are supported by iPhone. This outputs animated gifs. Animated
gifs are the standard cross-platform format.

webm is no less standard than mp4. The battle of webm versus ogg versus mp4
(which refers to h.263 and successors) is mostly a question of technical
communities (and Apple versus Google versus Firefox). Each platform supports
their own subset, based on what they value. At this point, as far as
marketshare, Chrome is in the lead.

Apple is throwing its weight behind mp4/h.263 mostly to keep open standards
from raining on their proprietary, closed garden. There's no technical reason
for it.

Most of my pages have videos transcoded to all three, but I think if they're
going to output just one, webm is probably the best format to go with. Most
users won't download all three; they'll download one and share it. For that,
webm is the right choice. Otherwise, you'll run into more problems when Apple
users try to share patent-encumbered MP4 files and have others not be able to
view them. Outside animated gifs, someone needs to break; might as well be
iPhone.

If you have a problem with that, complain to Apple; they could include webm
and off cost-free. They choose to strip it out in order to screw you over.

~~~
cstrahan
The reasoning I've seen for iOS/Safari not supporting webm: there isn't
hardware support on the iPhone, which would hurt battery life. See:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16319651](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16319651)

However, I think that would be poor judgement on Apple's part. I mean, sure,
preventing someone from watching a webm might preserve battery life, but why
stop there: imagine the savings if they were to strip iOS down to merely being
able to make phone calls!

Let the user consume whatever media they want, and if that media drains
battery, that's on the user for making that choice. I can see that Apple
wouldn't want people to complain about iPhone battery life if webm took over
the web, but then I wouldn't mind some minor nag at the beginning of playback
to the effect of "hey, this video you're playing may drain your battery faster
than you might otherwise expect, so take it up with whoever is serving this
content to provide an alternative encoding for iOS".

~~~
murgindrag
That was fascinating, not so much for the technical discussion, as the
presumptions behind it. That discussion views users as pure consumers, and
doesn't even contemplate a human being might want to make a video, a web page,
or share a video file (except through Youtube).

