Beta
×

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!

JavaScript Gameboy Color Emulator

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the taste-the-rainbow dept.

Emulation (Games) 153

Prosthetic_Lips writes "A programmer named Grant Galitz has released a GameBoy Color emulator written in HTML5/JavaScript, and it will run ROM images stored locally. What's amazing is that it runs the games at a playable speed. We discussed a different, but similar project six months ago, but it seems like this one is pretty complete at this point. It's also open source."

cancel ×

153 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GBC JavaScript (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433166)

Holy shit someone made JavaScript useful?!?

Re:GBC JavaScript (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433616)

Maybe you should have a look at QML from Nokia/Qt Community. Some of the apps look stunning and use Javascript to control the game logic

Re:GBC JavaScript (2)

jonescb (1888008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435018)

The x86 emulator running Linux in Javascript wasn't impressive enough to you?
http://bellard.org/jslinux/ [bellard.org]

Why? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433178)

It's really cool, and I bow to his technical prowess for getting it working, but I have to ask why anyone in their right mind would choose HTML5 and Javascript to implement a Gameboy emulator???

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433186)

Well, if you can visit this site on the phone with a modern browser for example...

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433338)

Because phones and desktop computers run at exactly the same speed right?

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433382)

Right.
Around 1GHz.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

max (79752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433888)

No. They might both be of the same magnitude of order, as in around 1GHz, but there definitely is a real noticable difference between the old 1GHz processor i bought around a decade ago, the 1GHz processor in my iPad and the 1.42GHz on my relatively old desktop.

Clock speed is not comparable when you have different architectures and the surrounding hardware differs greatly.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433190)

shit... i should quit my ps3 HTML5/JS emulator project

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433208)

well. think about it. your walled garden mobile device has to do js and html5 soon enough. .. ..so it's not so walled garden anymore. it shows how futile it is to try to keep censoring what you can run on a device from the user.

Re:Why? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433274)

As long as you limited yourself to Java applets, there never have been any walls whatsoever on the iPhone. Apple allowed Java applets, uncensored, from day one. However, developers weren't happy about being restricted to this inferior and slow language, and wanted to make native apps to take full advantage of the device. The "walls" are only for those native apps (which would have no trouble whatsoever running Gameboy games at 10 times the native speed while this Java Gameboy emulator is getting headlines for being "playable"). So no, nothing new here...

Re:Why? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433324)

What? who mentioned Java?

Re:Why? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433380)

Yeah, I know, Java, Javascript, whatever

Re:Why? (1)

narcc (412956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433586)

Yeah, I know, Java, Javascript, whatever

There is a HUGE difference.

Re:Why? (0)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433758)

Java/Javascript/Javawhatever are all object-oriented programming languages that are (supposed to be) platform-independent and as a result, due to various translation and other issues, run rather more slowly than native code. Yes, Java and Javacript are TOTALLY different, just like tigers and polar bears are TOTALLY different (if you disregard the fact that they're both large carnivores and therefore incredibly similar from an alien point of view). My point is that, if you were happy using non-native code, no "walls" have ever stopped you on the iPhone.

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

narcc (412956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433846)

Wow, you're an idiot.

Re:Why? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433854)

Elaborate much?

Re:Why? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433916)

You confused Java and Javascript for one.

Re:Why? (0)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433974)

I explained that I do know that there's a big difference, but that they are also very similar. Object oriented languages, not native, etc... Tigers and polar bears, remember I wrote that? Yes, they are used for different things. One runs in the browser, the other runs in a box in the browser (or in other places), WHATEVER! They are similar, period.

Re:Why? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434160)

JavaScript isn't OO in the same way that, say, Java and C# are. Java is class-based, JavaScript is prototype-based. JavaScript is also dynamically typed while Java is statically typed.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434584)

Java is also a real, object-oriented programming language, while Javascript is solely a web scripting language. With very little in common with Java.

Re:Why? (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434750)

A painful death isn't fun to watch. I hope you concede defeat :/

Re:Why? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434942)

Yes, I'm a total idiot for mistakenly seeing any similarity whatsoever between Java and Javascript. I humbly apologise. I bet this message will be modded insightful now ;-)

Offline, JIT, and camera (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434198)

My point is that, if you were happy using non-native code, no "walls" have ever stopped you on the iPhone.

Three differences:

  • Apps that use CACHE MANIFEST and localStorage to remain available offline appeared to be limited to 5 MB last time I checked. Game Boy Color ROMs were already up to 4 MB.
  • JavaScript is slow on iPhone due to lack of JIT. JavaScript in Safari has become faster on iOS 4.3, but pages bookmarked on the home screen still use the old slow interpreter.
  • And how does a program written in JavaScript request access to the camera and microphone? For example, how would a Game Boy Color emulator written in JavaScript emulate the Game Boy Camera?

Re:Offline, JIT, and camera (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434768)

Well, I suppose it probably does not have access to the camera, unless html5 provides access to it somehow. Which confirms my point that the comment about the "walled garden" not being so "walled" anymore was off the mark. Nothing has changed, you're not running native code. The walls apply only to native code, and those walls are still intact.

Still walls (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434816)

The walls apply only to native code

Then please allow me to rephrase: The 5 MB wall, speed wall, and camera/microphone wall apply to non-native code. I'd like to hear why these aren't walls.

Re:Still walls (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435004)

I was originally replying to someone saying that the walled garden is "not so walled garden anymore". I haven't actually seen any walls come down. Of course there are still limitations to JavaWhatever. But it's not like someone suddenly took down walls by programming in JavaScript. The walled garden is still unchanged. The possibilities outside the walls which are being used for the emulator, and the limitations, are still unchanged too. Nothing new. That's all I ever meant to say.

Re:Offline, JIT, and camera (1)

MadChicken (36468) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434984)

From my understanding, 5MB is the default, and if it grows the user is prompted to allow the increase. That may be just for databases though, I haven't personally tested it.

See: http://ofps.oreilly.com/titles/9780596805784/ch05_id35816678.html [oreilly.com]

Re:Why? (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434392)

Yes, Java and Javacript are TOTALLY different, just like tigers and polar bears are TOTALLY different (if you disregard the fact that they're both large carnivores and therefore incredibly similar from an alien point of view). My point is that, if you were happy using non-native code, no "walls" have ever stopped you on the iPhone.

Um, no. The iPhone doesn't *have* Java support. Yes, they are like polar bears and tigers. And the iPhone is like Antarctica. To an alien visiting Antarctica, there's a big difference between a polar bear and a tiger because only one of them lives there.

And yes, I know that there's a difference between Antarctic and The Arctic Circle, but they are both kinda similar, right? Except for the lack of polar bears ...

Re:Why? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434902)

Yes, I get it, Java and Javascript are different, give me a break! Google for "Java Javascript difference", count the similarities and count the differences. I found more similarities than differences. Yes, one has to be compiled and the other doesn't. Yes, one is a scripting language and the other isn't. I don't care. They are languages with a C-ish syntax that are mainly used to run little programs in browsers (yes, Java can run outside of a browser too, I know), they are slower than native code and have more limited access.

Just forget I said Java and replace it with Javascript in the original message.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434996)

sure, and there's only a couple inches difference between a vagina and an asshole. Not that you woudld care since there's only one chromosome difference between a vagina and a penis.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434506)

JavaScript truth table:
[ see link - filter won't let me post ]

source [stackoverflow.com]

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433652)

Wow, you're a fool. You have absolutely no idea what Java/Javascript/applet/midlet means do you?

Re:Why? (0, Redundant)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433756)

Jave/Javascript/Javawhatever are all object-oriented programming languages that are (supposed to be) platform-independent and as a result, due to various translation and other issues, run rather more slowly than native code. Yes, Java and Javacript are TOTALLY different, just like tigers and polar bears are TOTALLY different (if you disregard the fact that they're both large carnivores and therefore incredibly similar from an alien point of view). My point is that, if you were happy using non-native code, no "walls" have ever stopped you on the iPhone.

Re:Why? (1)

wed128 (722152) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434142)

-1 Redundant.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433322)

It's really cool, and I bow to his technical prowess for getting it working, but I have to ask why anyone in their right mind would choose HTML5 and Javascript to implement a Gameboy emulator???

You answered your own questions in your opening remarks.

Re:Why? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434214)

I have to ask why anyone in their right mind would choose HTML5 and Javascript to implement a Gameboy emulator???

Platforms that require digital signatures with an expensive certificate for native applications often do not require them for JavaScript applications.

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433466)

Maybe they want it to run on Windows 8.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433904)

Why not??

Re:Why? (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434168)

Because someone who is looking for an expert Javascript developer is going to offer him a job at $200k+.

Re:Why? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434544)

The same reason they have three-legged races.

It runs pokemon red! (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433218)

http://i.imgur.com/HX3pF.png [imgur.com]
Render me impressed. The sound is a bit of a mess but works better than that javascript Doom from some days ago.
I don't have a ROM for pokemon gold/silver but they might work as well. Pretty cool.
(Why pokemon and why should you care? It squeezes the gameboy until the last drop)

Re:It runs pokemon red! (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433248)

I would have thought the port of Donkey Kong Country would have pushed it more. At least graphically.. I guess Pokemon has a LOT more values to keep track of.

Re:It runs pokemon red! (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434158)

Well yes, graphically speaking DKC or even the infamous Resident Evil and a few other titles I can think about, do push the console much further in graphics.
However, pokemon required a lot of clever and/or gross hacks to fit everything in the minuscule available space. It's like cramming a modern-style database in a 8086.
(I believe the second generation (gold/silver/crystal) used a larger ROM size so they could relax a bit and fit stuff more liberally, but read about the "glitch pokemon" "Missingno" which offers some insight about the hacks used to fit pokemon green/red/blue/yellow into that ridiculous ROM size)

Re:It runs pokemon red! (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434244)

Oh right, that glitch. I was just learning about programming basics when I learned why that happend and it blew my mind out of my skull.

Re:It runs pokemon red! (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433388)

I have a self-dumped pokémon red rom, and it does indeed run pretty well.

Colour me impressed!

Re:It runs pokemon red! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433532)

It crashes at Worms Armageddon though.

But I could play Mario nicely. :)

Two things:
1. The sound mess seems to be a general problem. I've seen in with other things too.
2. I think the reason it runs playably, is because it automatically skips frames. Try disabling that for a real assessment.

I'd Give My Left Nut For This Dude (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433220)

I'd give my left nut to get this. Oh, wait.

Tom Green

This actually works =D (3, Interesting)

EnderDom (1934586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433264)

Ring in sick...
Google Pokemon ROMs...
Download Pokemon Gold...
I'll be back in 20 hours...

PAAAAAAAATCH !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433292)

Patch like you've never patched before !!

It's Tuesday !!

Fish !!

Plankton !!

Proteins from the sea !!

It's my juhyob !!

It's also open source. (2)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433360)

It's also open source.

Are there any JavaScript applications which aren't?

Re:It's also open source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433460)

those that have been minified, for one.

Re:It's also open source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433514)

Are there any native programs without assembly code? Same concept applies.

Normal -O2 cl/gcc asm output can be read more easily than greatly obfuscated JS.

BTW, "open source" generally refers to the license.

Re:It's also open source. (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434192)

Normal -O2 cl/gcc asm output can be read more easily than most non-obfuscated javascript I've read :P

ROM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433364)

They could have at least included a demo ROM to run. *grumble*

PDRoms.de (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434236)

They could have at least included a demo ROM to run.

Take your pick [pdroms.de] .

Remember back in the day... (2)

DMFNR (1986182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433378)

Remember back when JavaScript was good for little more than web forms and maybe some silly sparkling rainbow ponies? It's amazing how far this little language has come. I think a lot of these developers start projects like this just to show they can. Preconceptions die hard with developers. There's a lot of developers out there still afraid to use anything other than C++ for a basic desktop application because, "those other languages are slow". In think in the open source and *nix communities attitudes like this are the reason we end up with a lot of unmaintainable messes of C, because anything else is a "toy language". Sure, size and speed are still important considerations, we're all familiar with a few modern day programs that can eat a gig of memory and bring a dual core to a crawl, but it is all too common for people to blame this on the language and not the implementation.

So I think projects like this are awesome because they can help shatter these perceptions. Now I don't do any web programming these days, so I'm pretty unfamiliar with what enhancements have been implemented in the language and what tools and frameworks have been developed, but from looking at the code for a lot of these large JavaScript and HTML 5 projects, I still think the language has a long way to go before it can become a preferred tool for major software development. Large projects in most dynamic languages seems to still be a messy undertaking, after all, these languages were designed for ease of use and speed of development and I doubt they were built with an eye towards building large applications. So it will be interesting too see what the future holds, as "the cloud" seems to be the way of the future (like it or not) and we'll be seeing things like JavaScript being used in ways we never thought possible. It will be especially interesting to see what Microsoft has up their sleeve with the recent reports that Windows 8 will put HTML 5/JavaScript interfaces to the forefront. Love or hate Microsoft, I could see some interesting development tools for web based programming coming from them in the near future.

Re:Remember back in the day... (3, Insightful)

DerPflanz (525793) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433642)

There's a lot of developers out there still afraid to use anything other than C++ for a basic desktop application because, "those other languages are slow".

Euhm. JavaScript *is* slow. In this case, it runs a technology of 13 years ago in a platform-on-a-platform. On hardware that is a zillion times faster than a handheld game computer. I have the feeling computers get more and more sluggish the last years, just because of all this eye candy and layer-upon-layer.

Remember C64 boot times? It was subsecond. Granted, it loaded almost nothing, but it is also 30 years ago. But even the iPad (dedicated hardware, relatively small OS footprint) needs several tens of seconds to boot.

Re:Remember back in the day... (2)

DMFNR (1986182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434144)

You're right, and I'm not trying to say JavaScript is just so damn blazing fast people should rewrite all their FORTRAN code in JS. I'm just saying that a lot of progress has been made making the language somewhat capable. It's come along way in the last 10 years. I guess I went off topic a bit, as I wasn't specifically referring to JavaScript with that comment; I was talking more about why people do fun, but somewhat pointless projects like this in a language like JavaScript. It's good fun do things with languages and platforms that they aren't expected to be capable of doing. It's like the QuickBASIC community people making 3D games and stuff with QB4.5. Take what we've heard so far about Windows 8, or all of the work Qt is doing integrating JavaScript in to their framework. Given my own prejudices about JavaScript I would have never even considered giving it a major role in as desktop OS's UI framework. We use native code for that goddamnit. We'll see how it works out I guess...

But I definitely agree with you about all these layers of abstraction slowing things down these days. So much stuff is an emulator running in an interperter that compiled to byte-code that runs in a virtual machine that runs on native code that calls a huge framework that it's starting to become a bit ridiculous. These things all have their place, but I'm beginning to think that the x86 platform in general has had such a long run that all of our software is starting to become such a pile of cruft on top of cruft that I look forward to some new fangled architecture to take the world by storm just so we can start anew.

Re:Remember back in the day... (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434744)

Isn't QuickBasic a compiled language? If so, I don't see anything weird in making 3d games in it, even on old and slow hardware.

Re:Remember back in the day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434820)

Compiled BASIC really isn't that fast, in general. The compilers weren't smart enough to optimize the code well and BASIC didn't allow for much code optimization unless you wanted to drop straight into assembly code.

Re:Remember back in the day... (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434328)

So am I the ONLY one that sees this and thinks "Wow, if they can run an emulator in nothing but HTML V5 and JS what kind of malware will they be cooking up with this tech?". Excuse me for being a bit of a party pooper but I fix infected machines all day and nearly all new infections I see are JavaScript based either by using browser trickery (you should really see the Windows Update site they have cooked up for Firefox, it is REALLY good) or some sort of drive by download.

So maybe its me, maybe I'm wrong, but I've been thinking for years instead of bolting ever more onto JavaScript maybe, just maybe, we should be looking at a new language for the web? Maybe something that automatically starts in a "penalty box" until it passes inspection, and doesn't allow a single page to be made up of sometimes dozens of scripts from all over the place?

Because frankly all these tricks like sandboxing and low rights mode just seem to me to be band aids on bullet wounds. JavaScript has been around since 1995 and the web is a vastly different (and nastier) place now than it was then. There has to be some way to let sites have their bling bling bullshit without making the user run untrusted code on their machine.

Re:Remember back in the day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434802)

There has to be some way to let sites have their bling bling bullshit without making the user run untrusted code on their machine.

It's called the "iTunes App Store".

Any method other than a walled garden runs into the twin demons of the halting problem and social engineering.

speed of your computer getting you down? (5, Interesting)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433396)

Finding that your machine is fast enough? Noticing that previous generation native software runs at a good speed, providing you the security of physical barriers and an uptime which doesn't require you to rely on hundreds of cooperating network, storage and service companies? Worried that it's too easy to trust the admins in your own office more than any number of competitors, foreign governments and bored hackers?

Then you want... THE CLOUD. Turn your PC into a graphical terminal and turn the UI and responsiveness clock back 15 years. Show off to your friends that, thanks to the uniquely layered framework making up THE CLOUD, only you have a machine modern and beefy enough to emulate a 4MHz Z80. You too can have what you had with Windows 95, today!

Pretty much my feeling (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433562)

I've no issue with stuff being online. I love the Internet, it is a major part of my life both in terms of entertainment and profession. However let's be straight as to when it is and isn't useful. This "Let's do everything in a webbrowser," shit is stupid. No, let's not. There is nothing wrong with local, native apps and indeed there's efficiency advantages to be had.

Maybe someday we'll have processors so ridiculously overpowered it won't matter, you'll be able to run everything in a very high level language, all sandboxed up, with all kinds of crazy overhead and still have great performance and do it on less than a watt. However until that day, I think there's plenty of room for more efficient things on your computer.

That is all, of course, not to mention any of the security or privacy concerns you note.

I like the progress of technology but I dislike the fadism. People get in to these various fads with no real thought of if they are a good idea for everything. Currently "the cloud" and 3D video top my list of stupid fads. Not that having remote, distributed, data storage and computing is useless in all cases, but we had that before "the cloud." "The cloud" is rather ill defined and just seems to be BS speak for "Let's do everything somewhere else online because... well I don't know but it is an awesome fad!"

Seriously people, use the right tool for the job.

Re:Pretty much my feeling (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434562)

I love the Internet

Yes, but.

The Internet is like that hot girlfriend that promised to give you a threesome with her and her twin sister, but you've been with her for three years, spending money all your money on her and now the twins are starting to get fat and skanky and they still haven't put out and now they're starting to become nothing but a pair of greedy sluts. On top of that they've both got these suspicious sores around their mouths.

Yes, that's the Internet.

I like the progress of technology but I dislike the fadism.

The "fadism" is how all the money's being made. And if you haven't noticed, the only purpose for the Internet now is to make money. The Internet is nothing but a 24-hour home shopping channel on cable television and no matter how many times you change the channel, it's still a 24-hour home shopping channel.

Think about the promise the Internet showed in its early days and now think about what it's become.

Re:Pretty much my feeling (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434586)

There is nothing wrong with local, native apps

I can think of a few things:

  • Several popular platforms require all native applications to be digitally signed, and there's so much bureaucracy in getting an application signed that a smaller firm cannot compete.
  • Local applications are usually packaged in such a way that the user must have administrator privileges to install it, and not everybody who uses a computer is its owner. Some applications are distributed as a "portable application", which installs to the user's home directory or from removable media, but some organizations use operating system security facilities ("noexec /home" on UNIX or "Software Restriction Policies" on Windows) specifically to prevent this.
  • Even on a home PC, where a sympathetic administrator is usually within easy reach, downloading and installing an application is a psychological barrier to using the application. Would you want to have to download and install an application just to shop from an online store? That's one reason why some people choose Amazon MP3 over iTunes Store: no need to install the iTunes software.
  • A web application runs on any platform that has a web browser. That's another reason some people choose Amazon MP3: iTunes software simply isn't available for several minority operating systems.
  • Deploying updates to an application is easier: just push the update out to your server, and it's available to all users to use immediately.

However until that day, I think there's plenty of room for more efficient things on your computer.

Conventional wisdom appears to hold that efficiency in the programmers' time often outweighs runtime efficiency on the customer premises equipment.

Seriously people, use the right tool for the job.

I agree. But in a lot of cases, a web application is less wrong.

The Cloud: you keep using that word... (1)

pnot (96038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433856)

... I do not think it means what you think it means. This is a story about an emulator which runs client-side and can read local ROMs. Just because the magic words "Javascript" and "HTML" are in there doesn't mean it's "in the cloud".

Re:The Cloud: you keep using that word... (0)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433952)

To refute God, first you must define Him.

Proceed.

Re:The Cloud: you keep using that word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434556)

To refute God, first you must define Him.

A broken mirror with a light shining into it; that light equals "god".
Things overlapping outside our perception of time; the source of randomness.
Dogs plus cats. (i.e. Blasphemy is the sound of a woof plus a meow)

Eh, I frequently use a web based circuit simulator, because I'm lazy.

Re:speed of your computer getting you down? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434702)

Sadly there is no "insightful AND funny" mod, because you deserve it. How many perfectly working machines end up in the landfill simply because web bloat has made them unusable? Thank goodness for Chromium based because if it weren't for Comodo dragon I'd be having to toss this 1.8GHz Sempron which makes a wonderfully low power and quiet nettop, simply because FF would make it unusable for the web otherwise, and even then if I didn't have ABP it wouldn't be usable.

I'm sitting here looking at 4 AMD Athlon machines with 512Mb of RAM at 1.4GHz and frankly I'm amazed I found a guy to even give me $20 a piece for them, as nobody seems to want anything that can't run FB and YouTube fast. Most of the laptops that go through here end up in the garbage in less than 5 years, why? Web bloat makes them feel like turtles.

Maybe its just me, maybe I'm getting old, but I find it kinda sad that so much working gear ends up in the dump simply because web bloat kills cycles dead, and if it can't do the net folks don't want it. I don't want to even know what all that HTML V5 is gonna do to those 10s of millions of late model P4s that are still running. I'm already starting to get a drawer full of P4s simply because the combo of web+IM means that anything less than a Pentium dual feels like a slug but luckily I found a place with $34 Pentium duals so at least the whole machine won't have to be canned.

I just think its sad the whole "web 3.0 bling bling edition" causes so much hardware to end up shitcanned, especially when desktop apps like OO.o and VLC run just fine.

Re:speed of your computer getting you down? (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434804)

Bwahaha so true :-)

I did something like this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433422)

I did this NES emulator [comcast.net] for fun the other weekend.

It's running DK, renders in WebGL for fun.. Leans heavily on typed arrays, so you'll need the latest FF or Chrome (Chrome seems to run a tad faster). It's nowhere near fully optimized or playable. It'll probably crash your browser . Was more of a test of JS under load than anything else.

"Open source Javascript" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433432)

Wait a sec, is it even possible to hide Javascript code? Thought it was open by design, being client side and all...

Re:"Open source Javascript" (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433524)

There are obfuscators, changing function names to two letter ones, and removing whitespace.

Re:"Open source Javascript" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434306)

that's an optimizer. changing the names to really long ones make it harder to read. and you can't obfuscate the system calls(they wouldn't work if you did). same goes for java, python and anything. but with javascript it's as hidden as it was in qbasic.

Re:"Open source Javascript" (4, Insightful)

johnnysaucepn (1263108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433530)

Just because it's not obscured, doesn't make it open source. The author retains copyright, and still has the right to place it under any licensing terms he/she likes.

Re:"Open source Javascript" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434154)

You're conflating open source and Free (libre) software. If I can see the source code unobfuscated and without charge then it is open source. Licensing and copyright issues do not factor in.

Re:"Open source Javascript" (2)

lucian1900 (1698922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434814)

No, you're wrong. If the source is available, then the source is available and that's it. Open Source has additional licensing requirements http://www.opensource.org/ [opensource.org]

Re:"Open source Javascript" (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434914)

If I can see the source code unobfuscated and without charge then it is open source.

No, 'open source' was a term coined to convey a specific meaning. Free Software means something else too. Try here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:"Open source Javascript" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434220)

Being unobscured does make it open source...

What being unobscured doesn't make it is Free software.

cool shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36433498)

this is cool, also that it accepts the base 64 string of the encoded rom file. but unfortunatly i cant post the base64 encoded pokemon gold to slashdot due to "illegal characters" :)

but why oh why are the keys Z, X used ? on my german keyboard this is an EPIC FAIL...

Re:cool shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434688)

So re-map them or add the American English keyboard layout and hot-swap with the Alt-Shift hotkey.

Props (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433588)

Nicely done!

C64 > GBC (2)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433780)

Cool, but not as cool as the JavaScript C64 emulator [kingsquare.nl] .

Re:C64 GBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434208)

Ugh, every time I hit the space bar it jumps down the page like a 'tard.

Re:C64 GBC (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434704)

The author really needs to sort that space bar issue out.

What about Dynamic Recompilation (1)

Edsj (1972476) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434116)

Is it possible to make something like or we will be doomed to slow interpreted code?

Re:What about Dynamic Recompilation (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434720)

You could JIT generate Javascript which is then JIT compiled itself...

Challenge Accepted (1)

upto0013 (1144677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434138)

Link's Awakening at work? Challenge accepted.

Author Here (1)

grantgalitz (1955304) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434332)

My JavaScript gameboy color emulator is not related to the one the op has you believe was incompletely done months ago, that's imran's and it's still an incomplete one. The sound may sound bad, it's not my fault, it's actually your browser, since in some cases I need to fallback to flash outputting the audio due to a lack of a JavaScript API to drive the realtime audio. Try running it in firefox 4 for better audio. And for those saying this is another gameboy color emulator in JS, nope, you're just thinking of the incomplete and toy gameboy only ones on the Internet that only can run like 5 games ok, with everything else crashing.

Re:Author Here (1)

grantgalitz (1955304) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434404)

Hmm it seems the op changes the details on the project from months ago by imran, thanks for saying it's different and not the same project, you must have corrected it in this repost.

retro iPad gaming begins! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434444)

This definitely opens the door to retro gaming on the iPad... Page loads, but I guess I'd have to save my ROMs at an Internet accessible URL. Probably going to need to add some buttons and stuff to the page...but I can envision the possibilities. NES anyone?

Other JavaScript emulators (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434446)

It's not the only JavaScript classic system emulator.

For example, here are TWO different JavaScript Amstrad CPC emulators: http://www.cpcbox.com/ [cpcbox.com] http://roland.antoniovillena.es/ [antoniovillena.es]
A Spectrum emulator! http://jbacteria.antoniovillena.es/ [antoniovillena.es]
TRS-80: http://jtandy.antoniovillena.es/ [antoniovillena.es]

Of course the first two systems here are 4MHz Z80s, not 8MHz Z80s like the Gameboy Color.

Re:Other JavaScript emulators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434476)

GameBoys didn't use a Z80 CPU, they use a custom CPU designed in the spirit of the Z80. The timings and some opcodes are different.

Re:Other JavaScript emulators (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434790)

Ah yes, I see, a Hitachi CPU halfway between an 8080 and a Z80.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435046)

Since HTML is the future of mobile applications this is a good place to start! All this programmer needs is some UI help because that is one ugly emulator.

Pokemon Crystal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435190)

I herd u liek Pokemans: http://www.grantgalitz.org/PokemonCrystal/

Week wasted..... AAAAAWWWW YEEEEAAAH

Does it play sound ? If yes, how ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435210)

Has anyone tried it. I am interested to know if it plays sound and if yes, how does it manage to do that. Is it using any javascript library to play sound ??

Gameboy Emulator for MSX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435250)

Not as cool as GEM [gem.tni.nl] , the Gameboy Emulator for MSX, which emulates a good percentage of games (incl. Zelda and Metroid 2) at playable speeds on a 7MHz Z80-derivative MSX turboR.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>