Future = (Vpython + Glowscript) | Glowscript | ???

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...] JavaScript is slower than C++ but
> considerably faster than Python. To my knowledge, there is no
> possibility for something like numpy, which runs at the speed of C.

once numpy and co can run on pypy, will visual?  pypy.org has been
raising money for the numpy port ... ~45k of 60k.

> Another speed issue to consider is that because GlowScript uses WebGL,
> which requires the use of modern GPU-type graphics cards, many kinds
> of graphics can be significantly faster than in VPython, which
> currently uses GPUs only optionally, for textures. I've been dreaming
> of a VPython+ that would also require the use of a modern graphics
> card.

so, as someone who as lurked this list for probably 4+ years now, this
is something i've been wondering since the inception of glowscript and
all the chatter/activity around it compared to vpython ...

how does glowscript and vpython fit together in the "big picture"?
has interest in the python module diminished (none? some? all?) in
favor of JS?

this is not really a criticism, whatever you answer; i'm mostly
curious because i'm doing a short presentation next week on vpython to
my company (~40-60 other developers, JS/Python/.NET/C#), and i'm
writing up a demo program (visualization of message queue data! yay!)
and supporting materials this weekend.  i haven't actually ran
glowscript successfully on my archlinux machines, in any browser, but
i planned on giving it an honorable mention as i know several JS
developers will be interested.  primarily, i just want to give a good
representation of what visual is, and what is to come.

i know it's a pretty open ended question, but it's been on my mind for
awhile.  i wrote JS for many years before learning (and instantly
embracing) python; it goes without saying that IMO ...

Python > JS**10

... alas, i'm almost assuredly biased, as i work on projects like
pyjs.org translating Python-to-JS (for the goodness of all ;-) ... i
was even considering implementing a pyjs wrapper to glowscript,
"theoretically" allowing vpython programs to run unmodified in the
browser.  all-in-all, JS/ECMAscript, as implemented in browsers at
least, is a wonderfully powerful language but offers no supporting
infrastructure whatsoever. with the advent of pypy, any performance
gaps are probably not so large (unconfirmed), should they exist at all
(absolutely unfounded).

what say you!?!? :-) again, while i prefer and champion the python
side of things, i completely understand the
benefit/opportunity/convenience of glowscript -- both are super-cool
and vpython is loads of fun.

thanks,

-- 

C Anthony

aside: at pyjs.org we've tried to bring python to the web via
translation, but also direct bindings to the layout engine
(Trident/XULRunner/WebKit), some of which are very successful.  we are
looking for a more universal way to achieve direct bindings, say via a
plugin toolkit like Firebreath, or similar.  perhaps you can better
merge the two projects by doing the same -- use a browser to render
vpython.  if you drive the browser's WebGL engine directly you can get
all the benefits (hardware accel/etc) in vpython for free.  the
Trident engine (Windows) is the most stable for us, accessed via COM
interface, and the GObject WebKit bindings are the next promising
method for other platforms.  there are also mature ObjC bindings to
WebKit.  not sure how/if WebGL is exposed currently, but it might be
worth pursuing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/