×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Futureproofing Artifacts: Spacewar! 1962 In HTML5

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the way-better-than-a-hi-fi-jumprope dept.

Classic Games (Games) 175

trebonian writes "In 1997 we posted a playable version of the Spacewar!, the first graphical computer game. Spacewar! was written by Russell et al at MIT in the early '60s. We did not re-implement the game. Rather, we found the original source code, rebuilt it to get an authentic binary and ran it on a PDP-1 emulator that we wrote in Java. We chose Java to implement the PDP-1 because we believed at the time — correctly as it turned out — that a Java version would survive the browser wars. Also, it would not require any effort to keep it running on all platforms well past the turn of the millennium, and through the traffic peaks of Spacewar's 40th and 45th birthday. It's now getting close to 15 years later. We would not want to bet that in another 15 years a Java program will still run on the latest popular platforms. As a hedge to the future, and in an effort to continue the preservation of this significant digital artifact, we've now ported the PDP-1 emulator to Javascript/HTML5. This should see the game through Spacewar!'s 50th (and hopefully 60th) birthday. Expect another update around 2025."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

175 comments

First (3, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35352920)

Open source software :)

Re:First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35352966)

I see what you did there. Clever way to avoid being modded off-topic, but you're still just as likely to get modded troll.

Re:First (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353150)

No kidding. It's already future-proof by virtue that it's open source.

Re:First (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353192)

I like how it was modded off-topic when it actually is the first open source software. The source code wasn't released until later, on paper, but it's the earliest software that's open source.

Re:First (3, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353244)

It is not the first open source software. Source was routinely released by IBM as far back as the 1950s. The SHARE user group was formed in the mid-50s for this very reason. Maybe you were modded down for being wrong, rather than offtopic.

Re:First (1)

trentblase (717954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353960)

I wish they would have just future proofed java by porting it to html5. Then they wouldn't have to rewrite their pdP-1 emulator. Plus, according to inception the whole thing would end up running faster.

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35354040)

Then HTML5 would become a pile of security holes.

Flash? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowar (1608865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35352944)

Netcraft confirms it! Flash is dead!

Despite that 90% of the earliest net memes are still perfectly playable today due to their SWF composition, it's interesting that they're (indirectly) making the statement that html5 will beat flash. I can see why, flash is a bloated, update happy, buggy, insecure beast of a program, sort of like java through the years.

Re:Flash? (3, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353166)

Despite that 90% of the earliest net memes are still perfectly playable today due to their SWF composition

All your base are belong to badger badger badger, who thinks it may not be a bad thing that every time you masturbate, god kills a meme....

Re:Flash? (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353464)

Either (1) There must be a whole lot of self-love abstination, or (2) there's a whole lotta memes that never see the light of morning...

Re:Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353770)

Despite that 90% of the earliest net memes are still perfectly playable today due to their SWF composition

All your base are belong to badger badger badger, who thinks it may not be a bad thing that every time you masturbate, god kills a meme....

Then all the memes would have been gone in the 90's.

Re:Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353860)

Flash ATE MY BALLS.

Re:Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353522)

Who paid Netcraft to reach this conclusion? And in 3 weeks when someone pays them to make the opposite conclusion, what then?

Re:Flash? (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354090)

90% of the earliest net memes are still perfectly playable today due to their SWF composition

Single White Female composition? This is /. That's not playable here.

And then they got free (4, Interesting)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35352956)

Bah - now they've let those little spaceships out on the web. At least you can use them to kill adds - http://erkie.github.com/

Re:And then they got free (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353916)

http://erkie.github.com/

That is the coolest thing I've seen this week. Kudos to young Mr. Andersson.

Natural Selection in the Informtion Age (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35352968)

There is a growing concern among some knowledge managers that society will lose a lot of its heritage as information formats change.
The expense and expertise required to move things from paper to micro fische to CD to .... ???? is a very costly and time consuming exercise - assuming you can even get the spare parts as technology advances and factories no longer produce them.

So is HTML 5 our saviour in this matter?

Time will tell I guess.

props (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35352974)

Great win for the community.

Get off my lawn! (3, Insightful)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35352986)

Now, if only we could force the current generation to play this for a few hours before complaining that I need to buy a PS3 because their xbox 360 isn't good enough...

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353370)

Why? I played it a few minutes. I'm not especially young, but it was rather boring, and I was able to grasp the limits of the whole game in under half a minute.

Re:Get off my lawn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353628)

Why? I played it a few minutes. I'm not especially young,

Nice try, punk. Now get off his lawn.

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353688)

Why? I played it a few minutes. I'm not especially young, but it was rather boring, and I was able to grasp the limits of the whole game in under half a minute.

Like checkers, it's better with an opponent.

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354384)

Why? I played it a few minutes. I'm not especially young, but it was rather boring, and I was able to grasp the limits of the whole game in under half a minute.

Like checkers, it's better with an opponent.

Or sex...

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

d6 (1944790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353702)

I played it for a bit too and was impressed with how well it would have held up against the ATARI 2600 crop of games 20 years down the road. Some of those really stunk [wikipedia.org]

Re:Get off my lawn! (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353744)

I was able to grasp the limits of the whole game in under half a minute.

I suppose I played a later Spacewar. Back when I was a kid--must've been about 10 or so--the local college had a PDP-9 with a paper-tape for Spacewar. Feed in the papertape and start flipping the switches to customize. And customize you could--gravity/no gravity, computer player, warp/no warp, warp-star/no warp-star, up to three human players, partial damage, and I'm sure there were a few more.

I remember playing it for about six hours straight--two human ships against the computer (which was very good). I absolutely loved that game.

A year or two later, the college basically said that they would give away the PDP-9 to anybody who would haul it away. I was desperately called my Dad and have him come pick it up. He just laughed and someone else eventually snapped it up that day.

...Among the saddest days of my life.

Futureproofing via HTML5/JavaScript? Really??? (4, Insightful)

johnthorensen (539527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35352994)

To say that JVMs won't exist for current platforms 15 years hence is a bit of a stretch, I think. On the other hand, HTML5/JavaScript (implementations, not the standard) is such a moving target that I wouldn't count on code written for it being able to run in a few years, much less a decade-and-a-half later. Still a cool hack, but the reason given is kinda lame.

Re:Futureproofing via HTML5/JavaScript? Really??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353118)

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Many parts of HTML5 are moving targets, but some are relatively stable - "standardized" or not. JS as a language is extremely stable, and I do not expect any current JS code to be syntactically or functionally invalid in 15 years.

Re:Futureproofing via HTML5/JavaScript? Really??? (3, Insightful)

sapgau (413511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353148)

I agree, I rather take my chances with a modern JVM and probably apply some fixes than have it completely broken for an unknown version of javascript and whatever the browsers of the future will think what HTML5 should look.

Re:Futureproofing via HTML5/JavaScript? Really??? (2)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354308)

I would say it's more a vote of confidence in the ability of Oracle to mismanage Java into obscurity rather than any real confidence in JavaScript's longevity.

Asteroids (2)

screwzloos (1942336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353014)

I see a striking resemblance between this and Atari's original 1979 Asteroids. I am curious how it took eighteen years to make that progress, though. Surely academia wasn't that far ahead of mainstream entertainment... or was it?

Re:Asteroids (2)

wbean (222522) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353082)

The problem was the hardware. Individuals couldn't afford a PDP 1. My first personal computer was an Apple II in 1981 and it cost $6,000, real money then. Universities had computers and the ones in science labs got used for all sorts of cool things.

Re:Asteroids (2)

BLToday (1777712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353108)

because it took 18 years of computer progress to go from a computer that cost $120,000 (in 1960 money) to $3,000? (1979 money) for the arcade cabinet. I'm guessing on the price of the arcade cabinet because they were usually $3,000 to $5,000 back in the 1990s.

Re:Asteroids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353552)

I still have the orginal arcade cabinet in my basement, It's still a classic.

Re:Asteroids (5, Informative)

Colin Douglas Howell (670559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353554)

As previous replies have pointed out, advances in hardware were key. In 1962, integrated circuits were still in their infancy. They had only been invented four years earlier, and the only ones in production were being built for U.S. military projects like the Minuteman nuclear ballistic missile. And even those were very small-scale circuits, with only a few logic gates per chip.

Computers like the PDP-1 [wikipedia.org] were built using thousands of discrete transistor components for their logic and magnetic cores for their main memory. The price for a basic PDP-1 at that time was around $100,000 in 1962 dollars, equivalent to about $800,000 today. That's a *basic* system; the point-plotting CRT display used in Spacewar! [wikipedia.org] would have added quite a bit to the cost. The machine with all its peripherals took a good fraction of a room and probably weighed at least 2000 pounds. And running Spacewar! pretty much consumed the PDP-1's entire processing power. (Since the display was point-plotting only, the spaceships had to be drawn as series of dots, and the display had no storage ability, so a lot of processing overhead was needed to constantly refresh the entire list of currently displayed dots.)

When Spacewar! was written, the video game was basically a science-fiction concept, and computer graphics itself was just beginning to develop. Arcade games at that time were purely electromechanical games, such as pinball. The first commercial arcade video games (Galaxy Game [wikipedia.org] and Computer Space [wikipedia.org], both of which were ports of Spacewar!) didn't appear until 1971; Atari's Pong [wikipedia.org] came out the following year. Arcade video games of the early 1970s used custom state machines built from TTL logic chips instead of programmed computer systems; the first microprocessor-based arcade video games appeared starting in 1975 with Taito's Gun Fight [wikipedia.org], which used the Intel 8080. It was those programmable microprocessor-based systems that really allowed video game development to take off; for example, Asteroids was based on a 6502. Incidentally, Asteroids' vector display system first appeared in an arcade game with Cinematronics' Space Wars [wikipedia.org] in 1977.

Spacewar! was widely ported to various computer systems during the 1960s and 1970s, so it's no surprise that Asteroids bears a strong resemblance to it.

Re:Asteroids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353802)

Thank you for a very informative post, free of the usual Space Nutter dreck that "computers only exist because of the Space Race to the Moon". Good to know some people can still think clearly these days. A good grasp of the history of technology (and the actual driving forces behind most of it: war, business and fun) is sadly lacking among the nerds for some reason.

wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353028)

that game sucks hard
pdp-1 is dead long live pdp-8

Re:wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353054)

Most of the games like this that freetards pine over suck ass. I know this will get most of their panties in a twist but nethack is one of the absolute worst games.

Re:wow (1)

praxis (19962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353420)

Why do you think NetHack is so terrible?

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353880)

It's boring and repetitive.

Re:wow (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354406)

It's boring if it doesn't mesh with your imagination, and it's repetitive only in the sense that no two games are ever alike.

On the other hand after you've ascended a few times, the easier class/race combos do tend to become routine, and I guess you can start to see the game as a series of easy steps:

Survive to level 7. Do the mines. Do Soko. Do medusa. Do the castle. Do the quest. Get the bell. Get the candlestick from Vlad. Get the book. Find the square. Get the amulet. Do the planes. Ascend.

But no matter how many times you've done this, it's still a challenge and always has some unpredictable elements. And you can *always* die on the next turn if you aren't careful.

If you don't enjoy this game or this kind of game, maybe don't play it. It is interesting that you'd go out of your way just to criticize it on a forum where maybe one person in ten has ever played the game...

A cool game to play. (5, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353052)

I played this at MIT - the setting was as cool as the game. Go down an alley, into a freight elevator, up to the top floor, where the elevator opens into a computer room, and play at the console. It felt like the game was embedded in a James Bond movie.

Re:A cool game to play. (2)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353106)

Yeah, my roommate used to sneak us in to play it. We were blown away that such things could be rendered in real-time. It' still pretty awesome given the hardware limitations of the time.

Re:A cool game to play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353762)

Me too, the room was pretty crowded in the early 1970's when I played the game, but still a cool place. Some years ago a friend mentioned that he was looking for the button-box controllers (connected by cables) that were added at some point -- they were a lot more convenient than using the front panel switches as shown in the cnet photo of Steve Russell.

Re:A cool game to play. (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353922)

There was (mid to late 1970's) also a version of Dungeons and Dragons written in PL/1 (!) that was on at least one of the MIT mainframes. I have often wondered who wrote that and what has happened to it.

Re:A cool game to play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35354098)

It was also ported to the Sigma 7 of SDS (later Xerox Data Systems). I recall playing it on the computer at the Cyclotron at Michigan State. There were switches that did what the keys do.

Benchmark? (4, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353064)

How does the speed of this Javascript emulator (on a typical PC) compare to the original hardware PDP-1?

Re:Benchmark? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353254)

I don't know about speed, but the weight difference is (was) considerable. The old machine was four full racks and (according to the Computer Museum) ~ 1200 pounds.

Re:Benchmark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353460)

And how much does a Javascript emulator weigh?

Re:Benchmark? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353500)

The emulator runs (slowly) on my Android phone so I guess a Javascript emulator weighs less than or equal to 169 grams.

(though I can't seem to get the keyboard controls to work - when I press a key, it ends up in the address bar),

Re:Benchmark? (3, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353556)

I found some more information about the PDP-1 [history-computer.com], and it looks like it could complete 200K operations/second (100K multiplies).

It cost $120K in 1960, or around $900K in today's dollars.

I still don't know how fast the emulator is, but I bet it's faster than the original.

Re:Benchmark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353758)

I bet it's not on my poor UMPC's 1600 MHz Atom -- or else the kids were a lot more tolerant of stuttering gameplay in those days (which, in fairness, they likely were).

Why not port to C (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353072)

If you port the emulator to plain vanilla ANSI C, then it should still run in 100 years unchanged.

Re:Why not port to C (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353100)

Because C isn't as cool as Web 2.0 languages and technologies?

Re:Why not port to C (2)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353178)

Yes, yes it is! Suckers just don't get how to RUN applications, they think that they can "RUN" the Internet...

Re:Why not port to C (4, Informative)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353122)

How do your port an emulator with graphics capabilities to plain vanilla ANSI C? C doesn't include any graphics API.

Re:Why not port to C (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353208)

ASCII graphics man! A pixel THAT BIG is all we need. He'd also implement "refreshing" as just clearing the screen. Ah, I can see it already...Ha Ha Ha. Nice catch ;)

Re:Why not port to C (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353290)

Hey I resent that! We used to print out our porn sideways on teletypes uphill both ways in the snow, and WE LIKED IT, DAMMIT!

Re:Why not port to C (1)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354166)

Those noisy gray teletypes, with the yellow paper tape and chad bucket and all?

Bah -- youngsters. We use to have our porn chiseled on rock tablets and then tossed at us. If you missed catching it: well, no porn for YOU today.

But my GOD it was hard for the participants to hold their pose for hours on end while the "photographer" feverishly hammered away. They didn't have microfilter dust masks for the dust particles, of course. Viagra, either. And far be it that he breaks the stone and has to start over. That's just a bad day for all involved.

Re:Why not port to C (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353820)

void init_video(void) { /* implementation defined bits */ }
void draw_line(short x0, short y0, short x1, short y1) { /* implementation defined bits */ }
void swap_buffers(void) { /* implementation defined bits */ }
void get_buttons(int *ply1, int *ply2) { implementation defined bits */ }
void msleep(unsigned ms) { /* implementation defined bits */ }

if you can't write 5 simple functions for your platform you don't deserve to play any games. Yes, I know it would be better to have a get_ticks and then integrate the movements, but that's not how the original program worked so why bother.

Re:Why not port to C (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354420)

ANSI C can represent an n-dimensional array of bits, which is all graphics is. Getting that array of bits onto a display device requires an interface that isn't defined in, but also not precluded by, an ANSI C implementation. So I guess I don't see the problem.

Re:Why not port to C (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353130)

I seem to be having some trouble. Could you please post the link to the plain vanilla ANSI C graphical API?

Re:Why not port to C (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353154)

ANSI C doesn't contain any meaningful display interfaces, so certainly something would have to be changed. But leaving it up to future generations to provide the part where the simulated frame buffer (if a PDP-1 used one) is made into a real window via whatever appropriate interface is probably okay. :)

Re:Why not port to C (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353276)

That's certainly the general idea, but direct calls to a framebuffer API (for example) aren't needed. A C program has STDIN and STDOUT after all, and STDOUT can be piped to a graphics interpreter front end for whatever system we'll be running in 100 years.

So to keep the PDP-1 emulator code unchanged, have it output a mini graphics language ( control codes or HTML or Display Postscript or whatever the flavour of the month will be). You'll never update the emulator code base, just attach new generation graphics interpreters.

Re:Why not port to C (1)

Capt. Skinny (969540) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354024)

PDP-1 code > PDP-1 emulator code > Graphics interpreter code

How many tiers do we need to implement a video game from the early 60's? Hmm... makes me wonder about code inflation -- what the 2011 equivalent is to a single 1962 line of code.

Re:Why not port to C (1)

Colin Douglas Howell (670559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353584)

... the simulated frame buffer (if a PDP-1 used one) ...

It didn't. The display was a point-plotting CRT which had to be dynamically refreshed by the CPU.

million baby play-dates scheduled world wide (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353076)

no time like the last minute to attempt to do the right thing? better days ahead. do the math. there's still room for improvement (hopefully tempers the excessive aggressive 'kings of the world' mutation) in our dna, which can potentially evolve in a positive manner, while we're still alive? no one is lord over any other. see you there?

Not to be confused with SPACWR (2)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353126)

As a preteen in the late 70s I played a game that I remember as SPACWR on a friend's DEC PDP-11. My friend and I played for hours and thought it was great fun. It was really an ASCII Star Trek game originally written by Mike Mayfield in 1971 in BASIC [wikidot.com] and then translated into DEC BASIC by David Ahl who gave it the confusing name so similar to the game discussed here.

Here's another link for the curious.
http://www.dunnington.u-net.com/public/startrek/ [u-net.com]

Re:Not to be confused with SPACWR (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354428)

I still play a flavor of the classic Star Trek game pretty often.

Didn't have a PDP1 (or PDP 8 either) (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353152)

When I was in college (starting fall 1969), we took the original math and programmed an IBM 360 to print out a gravity map that could be pasted on posterboard/cardboard.

Then we played off of that.

The program got rewritten for a PDP-10, in interactive mode for use on graph paper (and one test version on a Techtronics 4010 graphics terminal).

It was the first programe to be banned by the computer center.

Just keep emulating (2)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353168)

So they wrote a PDP-1 emulator for java. Maybe they should keep building emulators to run the last emulator on a newer system. Repeat ad infinitum and you never have to know more than 2 languages at a time in order to preserve it.

Re:Just keep emulating (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353300)

at some point, you will need to know only one. turtles.

Re:Just keep emulating (1)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353466)

Because, of course, it's turtles all the way down.

Re:Just keep emulating (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353502)

Yep, that was the joke -- thanks for explaining it...

Re:Just keep emulating (2)

Fex303 (557896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354466)

Because everything can be emulated in Logo?

Actually, does anyone know if Logo is Turing Complete?

Re:Just keep emulating (1)

Krater76 (810350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353318)

Repeat ad infinitum and you never have to know more than 2 languages at a time in order to preserve it.

I get the joke about writing an emulator for an emulator, but even if you wrote a new emulator for PDP-1 every lifecycle iteration, you still only have to know 2 languages: PDP-1 and whatever language you want to write the emulator in.

Re:Just keep emulating (0)

jmv (93421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353498)

I can't wait to see the speed of a java VM implemented in Javascript running a PDP-1 emulator.

Re:Just keep emulating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35354416)

I can't wait to see the speed of a java VM implemented in Javascript running a PDP-1 emulator on ported Netscape running on a PDP-1

FTFY

Re:Just keep emulating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353900)

java != javascript

Wrong choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353268)

You chose a browser script/protocol rather than a programming language?

Sorry but I think you've chosen the thing that will die first. Java is standard across platforms. Javascript and HTML5 are not (and will never be) standard across browsers.

C++ has been around for a long long time, and it is a horrible unclean mess (compared to any modern language like Java) that should have died 20 years ago.

Java will be around in *50* years time. HTML5 will be being replaced in 5 years time.

Re:Wrong choice (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354144)

You chose a browser script/protocol rather than a programming language? Sorry but I think you've chosen the thing that will die first. Java is standard across platforms. Javascript and HTML5 are not (and will never be) standard across browsers. C++ has been around for a long long time, and it is a horrible unclean mess (compared to any modern language like Java) that should have died 20 years ago. Java will be around in *50* years time. HTML5 will be being replaced in 5 years time.

Only if nobody comes around to collect the garbage.

*This* digital artifact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353468)

You can forget about new digital artifacts that are encrypted and 'protected' with DRM. Even if/when copyright expires, sometime in the 2200's, there's no indication that circumventing DRM will suddenly be legal. So any future geek thinking they can create a holodeck experience with an emulated PS3 to play games like they did in 2011: sorry.

Re:*This* digital artifact (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353682)

Oh, they will probably have atom level emulators of the hardware at that point.

A Great Review of Spacewar! for the uninitiated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353562)

http://insomnia.ac/reviews/pdp-1/spacewar/

This is NOT the original code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35353846)

They modified the binary to change the sizes of the ships.
Who cares if this is running in 50 years?

Cinematronics SpaceWars (1)

ogdenk (712300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354242)

PDP-1 SpaceWar was a milestone but the arcade version from Cinematronics was a lot more fun I thought....

For a moment there (1)

saikou (211301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354302)

I thought they ported Java onto Javascript/HTML5. You know, so there'd be an emulator of a java that runs emulator of PDP that runs a game.

And the whole thing is inside of a Virtual box, that is installed on top of an instance running inside of a cloud :)

ASCII Art, lives forever (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35354334)

| .
v
            .

                  * .
.
  ==>
                           

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...