For those of you whom consider 1k to be excessive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R35UuntQQF8

@h3po same here, but runs perfectly in safari

i get 20FPS on my alianware M15X with the i7 4 gig ram windows 7 nvidia GTX260M and on firefox with 2 gigs in use

not for the low end computers

Runs just fine on my dual-core from 2006 or something in firefox.

Guess something is messed up at the software front h3po! Like junkhacker mentioned as well.

runs smooth as silk on my Firefox 3.6.8
AMD 3GHz Phenom II x4
ATI HD4850 (this is probably the main bottleneck)
4GB DDR2 RAM @ 1066MHz
Win7pro

I find it funny how people who are posting on a site all about hacking (aka it’s safe to assume people around here have at least some basic computer knowledge) are talking about how their video card affects JavaScript performance.

I get about 1fps in Firefox on a Pentium III @ 866mhz with a Geforce4 MX & 640mb ram. I’m honestly surprised it even ran =P,

Very impressive. I think its pretty awesome to see it in practical use too, for example
“fr-041: debris” by farbrausch http://www.farb-rausch.com/prod.py?which=2 which only uses 177kb and can display in resolutions up to 1280 x 1024!

Please note: virus scanners may flag this as a virus. It isn’t – I’ve used it myself and various sources will confirm it as a false-positive.

Getting a few frames per second on my droid. Surprised its doing as well as it is.

Anyway, steve’s site is great, he has some fantastic writeups especially Making Worlds. If you enjoyed this analytical writeup, check the rest of his site.

I found the demo to be somewhat disappointing. The effect is not that impressive for the 1024 category and something similar should be doable on the 256 level (I crudely guess, since I’ve worked on that level for some time).

Secondly it’s a bit weird that there is a … JS category? .. Not bytes count, but … CHARACTERS?! That’s just the thing with JavaScript that it takes one dimension of possible optimizations away, i.e. I do not need to know and compare different instruction sequences to push the size of my code down — I’m just able to re-factor my code.

Nevertheless, the detailed description of what steps he took why is, of course, an impressive thing for the community, I would like to personally say thanks! We need more such people.

@biozz “not for the low end computers”:

Bet you’re glad you spent all that money on your ‘super rig’.

I ran it on a P4 3.0GHz (yes, single-core *gasp*) with 1GB ram and a GeForce5200. No memory spike, no problems, silky smooth on FF3.6.8.

I have no concept of why so many people have issues with this. Some of them even ran fine on my Droid, though never at the same FPS.

@Mihail121 I’d agree with you if we were talking compiled/byte code as demos traditionally are, but this is essentially the source code with is almost always many times larger than compiled counterparts.

“And no, it won’t work in Internet Explorer” — What a piece of crap.

Smooth as silk chromium 6 64 bit on my 2.3ghz athlon. with both running. even better when I stopped one.

I like all of the math “tricks”. The demo with the light rays was mighty impressive. The writeup was very detailed as well.

VOTE++

ps: most of these ran like crap, but watchable

on my 2x agp sdr (512mb) ram Intel workstation 1.7ghz (PGA) P4 board at work with desktops.exe, outlook sucking down 100mb and firefox

my old modest 4gig 800mhz-ddr2, 2.6ghz X2, with a 9600GT, ran these scripts balls out both under Windows7 and Ubuntu 10, check for driver problems spyware crapware malware, and dust, these are only 1kb scripts

Where exactly is the “black art of producing compact demo code” if the demo is delivered in source code form, interpreted by a huge JavaScript VM, rendered inside a Tag, and displayed inside a Web Browser on top of huge libraries and a full-blown operating system?

DirectX- or OpenGL-Demos are already cheating, but this “1k”-Demo is just a plain lie.

I found the brick game ironic in that the original game was in color with much more physics and was probably smaller.

I guess it could be the limitations of JavaScript.

These kinds of contests really show how slow rendering is and how poorly suited for graphical applications the web is.

That said #116 motivated me to clean my screen, and then freaked me out with a single black pixel, which I realized was part of the Script when it moved with the scroll bar.

Phil Burgess, you didn’t seem to understand the real point.

Javascript as a solution to cross-platform compatibility is like solving the problem of your feet getting muddy by hiring a team of runners to carry you around on a chair, instead of buying a pair of wellingtons.

There’s bound to be a better solution for it. Like, everyone agreeing upon a basic set of API/ABI for all the platforms so your software can actually run natively. There’s only two architectures around, x86 and ARM that mean anything anyways to the general public.

Except it won’t happen in Open Source because it’s a herd of cats. They’ll never agree on standardizing things like what libraries you should include in your brand spanking new Linux distribution.

And using javascript-spesific function calls to make small code doesn’t help you to do the same in other languages.