In the teaser video all visible parts are direct screen recordings of:
(1) existing 2D canvas or WebGL demos ported to NiDIUM engine
(2) shots and images from the native embedded UI Framework
Do not expect NiDIUM to read HTML pages or to compete with any existing browser.
Instead, expect a solution to build (and browse) applications, with a fast and unified look and feel.
* Yes, it's a browser, in a sense that it can loads remote "apps/code" via HTTP using URLs (and somehow link them)
* Almost everything is integrated and highly customizable (like the integrated UI Framework)
* Cool APIs like plain-socket UDP/TCP (client and server), GLSL postprocessing on every canvas, layer, etc...
* We've made our best to be compliant with existing APIs (context2D, webgl, commonjs, etc...)
* It ditches HTML & CSS in favor of new things (NML and NSS, we will communicate on this later)
* Low Latency Audio and DSP (and yes, one of us come from the demo scene, hence the poor soundchip music ;-) )
We designed almost everything from scratch, but the whole thing is still at an early stage.
And to relate with tranding topics today about "english accent", we made this video a bit "old school" because we're not native english speaker (french) and a bit afraid of making "talkative" videos.
We will post updates as soon as possible!
Catchy videos are good, but in the case of projects such as yours, an associated architectural overview would be much appreciated !
It's installed on almost every PC for the last decade; it is called Flash.
Can you mention a couple of key things that make your product diferent and desirable, instead of Flash?
Because we remember other nice engines of this kind, e.g. Silverlight.
It being built on standard web technologies, instead of in a proprietary engine, with a proprietary authoring environment, horrible security, subpar performance and CPU utilization and crappy or no GUI support (so you have to built everything on your own).
I wish I could read it on project's web site. I's literally 2 more lines.
Also, are you planning on wrapping native GUI/forms elements or rendering your own via your abstract drawing layer (or both)?
You've pretty much described Blossom: https://github.com/erichocean/blossom
node-webkit is great, just wish there were great UI library (FOSS & MIT licensed) that looks exactly like a windows/mac/linux desktop application.
You already can do it. Canvas, WebGL, SVG, and a bunch of 2D and 3D libraries.
Windows app store:
Qt 5 is moving this way as well:
Having an ability to use platform-specific native components is a definite win.
Sure, and you can even do it with a brainfuck to js transpiler.
But I think he meant do it EASILY, without first hacking a full GUI stack from a 2D/3D primitives library.
I was shocked when I discovered I couldn't write a simple JS/HTML application and connect it to a local DB like SQLite without going through a server. Each browser has its own hackish way of doing something like that, but they're far from a complete solution. So far I have my eyes on node-webkit, which does everything I need it to do, but I welcome every option in this space.
You can access a database locally, at least as of the past couple years. It's called IndexedDB. People quibble about the API, the features, the browser support (Firefox, Chrome and IE10 only), etc... but it is a real database you can use locally.
How is the File API "hackish", let alone each browser having its own way of doing it?
The File API gives you access to the files the user has selected for your access. No website-accessible API will ever give full access to anything for rather good reasons.
Imagine you chose to build an IDE using Webkit and it lets you access everything via JS api that you could access using Cocoa or GTK+.
> wanted to be able to use the power of the browser for standalone, cross-platform desktop applications.
considering the power of the browsers is to run web applications, it makes sense that the standard and cross-platform APIs they expose are web APIs.
> Imagine you chose to build an IDE using Webkit and it lets you access everything via JS api that you could access using Cocoa or GTK+.
I cannot for the life in me understand how introducing a new browser engine deserves this kind of welcoming.
I can make the same claims as them. Worse, projects with catchy colors and no substance are submitted to HN all the time.
Maybe they actually worked hard and developed a good product. But I'll believe it when I see it. HN is a playground for every marketing guy hoping to raise developer hype about his doubtful product. Why should I give anyone the benefit of doubt ?
(And even then, hard work doesn't automatically mean what you do is good or noteworthy.)
It is ok to create hype for a product that is not out yet but still we would have to know what we should get hyped on.
Otherwise questions can be asked.
(Edited to remove JS from the "doesn't use" list - my bad)
It uses pure JS, without HTML and CSS. It's basically a LightTable creator's dream. I don't get what's there not to get.
I think it's because it claims to be a browser engine yet doesn't seem to actually be one. Browsers do HTML - that's in the very definition. The project may turn out to be cool, but calling it a browser seems like calling it an OS, misleading at best.
What counts is the result: a good result far outweighs the pains of hard work.
Currently no results can be seen. But the prospects the authors paint are rather interesting.
"We will send you a maximum amount of spam as soon as possible."
A lot like https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit
Only really interested people on the web have the attention span to watch 30 seconds of uninformative intro.
ie. Throw away the browser DOM and provide a bunch of new apis (and maybe a few existing ones which already seem ok, like the canvas stuff).
I'm curious what you get as a benefit of doing this instead of just using Node itself and providing an api to work with the graphics/sound/whatever engine.
No HTML or CSS renderering -> A considerably more plausible project, and certainly one that won't complete with existing browsers in the short term.
Either way, I'd like to wait and see that one in action - really like the idea.
If it could be rewritten to be started from a JS include on a web page, that would be ideal. Second best would be if it ran from Flash, a plugin that is still widespread. Next best is if it were a plugin itself, but very few users are willing to install a plugin, so that is already unusable for me. Next best is a downloadable separate app, but that's even worse in terms of the number of users who will go through the trouble to use it, so again is not something I would use at this point.
Good luck! I, for one, like the scene style demo vid! Although it didn't tell me if the engine would be open source or not, which is also a big thing with me. Coding for a closed source engine and being beholden to someone else to figure out and fix bugs in it when my webapp is having trouble is very painful.
That said, they seem to specifically say it's not an actual browser engine..
http://glsl.heroku.com/e#457.0 apple by iq
http://glsl.heroku.com/e#10809.0 by tigrou
http://www.backtothepixel.com/demos/js/webgl/704_webgl.html by paulo falcão
I really like Qt Quick, so this seems interesting too.
 Qt Quick supports OpenGL ES (the entire QML rendering system is written as an OpenGL-based scene graph), but I don't think you can make direct OpenGL calls without dropping to C++... You can add shaders to components from within QML though.
HTML is designed for more or less static content, but the DOM itself seems well adapted for dynamic content. Since it comes out of a tradition of streaming over slow connections, it's made to be dynamically rendered. The content layout is flexible and somewhat intuitive.
Compared to something like Swing or Cocoa, the only drawback seems to be the paucity of widgets -- we basically just have basic inputs and scroll bars, the rest is app-specific. But that also brings a certain flexibility. I think an update to the table element would be great, perhaps with support for streaming data and more flexible layout.
EDIT: When I say 'privacy is a bug', I mean the ability to provide privacy is still immature, and susceptible of exploits.
If you have nothing of value to add, just keep quiet. Otherwise you can come across as a bit of a dick. Thanks.
If you have nothing of value to add, just keep quiet. Otherwise you can come across a bit of a dick. Thanks.
I'm not talking about the comments from genuinely confused people, I'm talking about the nastier snipes which seem to have conveniently disappeared after myself and others called them out on it. Here's one that's still floating around: "there's nothing in that horrible presentation that a modern browser can't do".
And you're calling me a dick for calling out comments like that? Come on, please. I realise that my original comment AND this comment aren't adding any value to the conversation either, I'm just saying we aren't doing much in creating an environment where people are confident in sharing their work without fear of hours of work being instantly dismissed by snarky commenters. I'm sure you wouldn't like it.
There's little cleverness in reminding you of the plank you've got in your eye when you're looking at the dust in your brother's, but thanks nonetheless.
> Here's one that's still floating around: "there's nothing in that horrible presentation that a modern browser can't do".
The presentation is bad, and aside from this value judgement the comment expresses confusion over the improvements of the project over existing browsers.
> And you're calling me a dick for calling out comments like that?
I don't know, were you calling people dicks? So your comment was not just advising, it was passive-aggressively insulting third parties?
> I realise that my original comment AND this comment aren't adding any value to the conversation either
Indeed, have you considered practicing what you preach and leading by example?
> I'm just saying we aren't doing much in creating an environment where people are confident in sharing their work without fear of hours of work being instantly dismissed
There's little evidence of such a thing here, there's a marketroid video with a fluffy and empty title.
Meanwhile a few links below on the front page (at this time) you've got https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6314730 which shows an actual project with a number of interested comments, none of them negative as far as I can see.
Even https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6314310 which looks nothing special at first glance garners mostly positive comments (or more neutral ones talking about the space/ecosystem, wondering about it v alternatives, etc...) with a downvoted negative comment whose author readily agreed being wrong when his mistake was pointed out.
> I'm sure you wouldn't like it.
I don't mind marketing copy and email harvesting schemes getting slammed. Especially when advertised as a "show HN" with no show and little tell.
So save your "practice what you preach" and other cliches for someone else because this pointless conversation is becoming a parody of itself.
That's just you projecting.
> There's not much point in us discussing what isn't there anymore
Your comments are here and that's what we're discussing.
> it's just making my original point look irrelevant which you keep alluding to.
What I'm saying (not alluding to) is that your comment 1. lacks self-awareness and 2. is wrong anyway.
> So save your "practice what you preach" and other cliches for someone else
Yes, I can see you care more for giving lessons than following them, eh.
I should hope the world has learned its lesson as to why a commercial browser with that kind of branding is the worlds worst horse to bet on.
Good luck with the adoption of that thing.
(Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind! Just would've been a lot simpler than claiming to be a browser, and would've been less confusing.)
We pushed the problem of handling these authored pages to the browser, and as a result the web flourished as millions authored content.
Where will the content come from when the browser does not do HTML and CSS, and is instead a native client for OpenGL?
The only way I believe this will work is for the authoring tools to lower the barrier so far that anyone can create content for this.