Is BD-J Blu-ray's achilles heel? - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,959
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Otoh, I have a newer dvd player that also adheres to newer specifications that allow it to record on dvd, edit program material, and drop in chapter point on the fly. No amount of firmware updates are going to make a 1st gen dvd player achieve this new functionality, but both will play the same ole dvd's.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Yes it is, considering that most of us have moved on to Tivo/DVR units for recording functionality. DVD burners are soooo passe'.
jmpage2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 7,753
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Liked: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Otoh, I have a newer dvd player that also adheres to newer specifications that allow it to record on dvd, edit program material, and drop in chapter point on the fly. No amount of firmware updates are going to make a 1st gen dvd player achieve this new functionality, but both will play the same ole dvd's.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Ah yes, value added features... that have absolutely nothing to do with movie DVDs you buy at Wal-Mart.

Remember, the DVD-VR or DVD-RAM or DVD+R or DVD-RW specifications or whatever are not applicable to movie DVDs.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #183 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityscapex5 View Post

JAVA - write once, test Everywhere!

Are you aware of the rickety underpinnings of html over the course of a decade, as well? If that is the foundation of HDi, it's not exactly a position from which to gloat over other programming paradigms.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
 
post #184 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post

Remember, the DVD-VR or DVD-RAM or DVD+R or DVD-RW specifications or whatever are not applicable to movie DVDs.

...but they did evolve from somewhere, and I don't think it was from a vacuum.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #185 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

Yes it is, considering that most of us have moved on to Tivo/DVR units for recording functionality. DVD burners are soooo passe'.

Hdd is all the rage, until its all filled up, and you need a place to put stuff you want to keep. Say hello to dvd-burning, again. Sure there are even more options, but it all comes down to how much trouble you want to go through just to avoid the mighty convenient recordable disc.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #186 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:19 PM
Member
 
Snowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

...and they will also figure out to do whatever it takes to get their player working again, if the network option is not available. Got to be fair both ways.

Riiiiight. People who can't even be bothered to go and download a patch from a website or go through the installation of already downloaded patches will suddenly go to a website, try to find the file they need to download, then burn this to a CD / DVD, put it in their player, follow the onscreen instructions, all the while being told NOT TO TOUCH A THING WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING OR YOUR PLAYER IS TOAST.

Right, yeah, I can see that.

Quote:


They are both "evolving". Anything else is just talking points. New specifications, new features, introduced functionality that was formerly not operational- it's all just clever shuffling of words. Whether or not it appears on a list or occurs in regular firmware updates, it all amounts to "evolving technology", one way or another.

Where is HD DVD evolving? Where has the DVD Forum announced ANYTHING that isn't possible with the current players? Please, show me one thing that was promised once upon a time by the DVD Forum but so far isn't available in all their players and at the least requires a software upgrade. If you have something that would also require a HW upgrade, I'd be even more excited (for you).

Quote:


As long as the movie plays and they can hear sound and see pictures, most people aren't going to care less about all the other fancy-shmancy stuff that just makes good bullet points on a marketing brochure.

So why should they chose Blu-Ray that has several different HW version, Software Version and other "goodies" when they could just pick up ONE player and be done with it?

Oh yeah, I know, it's not "Blu" so it must be evil.
Snowrunner is offline  
post #187 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowrunner View Post

Where is HD DVD evolving?

Ok, call it a stagnant format, then, if that is what you prefer. Not a pretty outlook, but if that's what you want... (good thing they have that constant flow of firmware updates, to "gradually expose/yield functionality that should have worked from the beginning- it's "evolving" to fulfill the original spec, I guess you can say)

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #188 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 7,753
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Liked: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Ok, call it a stagnant format, then, if that is what you prefer. Not a pretty outlook, but if that's what you want... (good thing they have that constant flow of firmware updates, to "gradually expose/yield functionality that should have worked from the beginning- it's "evolving" to fulfill the original spec, I guess you can say)

Yes I will say that. HD DVD players have been evolving to fulfill the original robust spec properly. Fortunately, they have been able to do this through firmware updates, because all the hardware is already there, since the spec demands it.

Blu-ray is obsoleting early standalone players because its original spec was never robust in the first place. Early players don't have the hardware so they're now out of luck, after the BDA decided it needed to try to match HD DVD's robust specs.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #189 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
"Evolving", nonetheless. Whether you consider it to be fulfilling the original 1.0, or if it was actually an unwritten "0.9" evolving to 1.0 is rather academic. For all you know, there is a "secret" 2.0 spec waiting in the wings. Wouldn't that rock your perspective, to see that unfold? The future shall reveal...

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #190 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 7,753
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Liked: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

"Evolving", nonetheless. Whether you consider it to be fulfilling the original 1.0, or if it was actually an unwritten "0.9" evolving to 1.0 is rather academic.

Sorry, but you're confused. The HD DVD spec is still 1.0 and since the launch, it always has been. And the spec has very specific hardware requirements. It's not as if the players were built to 0.9 specs and then new players came out with 1.0 specs.

ALL HD DVD players have the hardware in place already to support the 1.0 spec. Sometimes there were bugs though, so they had to be corrected. Because the hardware is in place, the software updates can do this.

Unfortunately for Blu-ray, the BD 1.0 spec is simply neutered. The sad part is they knew this going in, but thought they could get away with it. So, the CE manufacturers built BD 1.0 players... but then decided HD DVD had it right after all. They went ahead and mandated a BD 1.1 spec, obsoleting all the BD 1.0 players.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #191 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
...and the same "tragedy" will happen to hdvd players, should a 2.0 spec appear sometime in the future (presumably, when cheap Chinese players have utterly collapsed hdvd hardware profitability market for 1.0 spec...great time to upgrade the spec and start the whole process over again! Yaaay! Would you really be that naive to say this could never happen in the name of making bucks for a corporation?)

Mind you, you are taking us off-topic with the same ole circular discussion about spec versions in a topic designated for discussion of BD-J. I seem to recall this very same tactic (employed by others) in an TL-hdvd topic. This seems to be a repeating trend. Don't like the topic- bring up spec versions, blah-blah-blah...

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #192 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 09:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BuGsArEtAsTy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AVS Forum
Posts: 7,753
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Liked: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

...and the same "tragedy" will happen to hdvd players, should a 2.0 spec appear sometime in the future (presumably, when cheap Chinese players have utterly collapsed hdvd hardware profitability market for 1.0 spec...great time to upgrade the spec and start the whole process over again! Yaaay! Would you really be that naive to say this could never happen in the name of making bucks for a corporation?)

Well, it never happened with DVD, and it's been 10 years now.

Oh and DVD players are $29 bucks now, and I bought my first DVD player in the first year of the format for $299.
BuGsArEtAsTy is offline  
post #193 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 10:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Certainly, it did. We have dvd players that do all sorts of stuff (including dubbing to recordable disc) that 1st gen players can never do. These new features didn't just come out of a vacuum. They came from specs. Maybe not specs that were publicly "officialized" like the first one, but new specs nonetheless. This doesn't mean that basic 1.0 spec players are no longer being made. Players of all sorts of capability are now available, due to the collection of many "specs", but they all still play the original dvd. So you can see how silly it is to make a mountain over what one spec draws a line in the sand. Specs come, specs go, one spec may supercede another, while another augments another...yadda, yadda, yadda.

Save the rest of your reply- it's off-topic here.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #194 of 232 Old 08-28-2007, 10:49 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
All this talk about "standard march of technology" and "HD DVD still on 1.0" is just fairy tale pretense and denial.

We are talking about two completely different situations:

1) HD DVD did all their thinking in advance about what a "next gen" optical format should be capable of, and what it should be able to do in the future. Therefore, their "first and only" player spec took this into account, and all players, regardless of age, have the ability to run all the movies and software thrown at it.

2) Bluray thought about "what can we technically get on the street real fast, guys" and went about trying to make it happen. then they thought a little more about it, and thought "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could add this feature a little later on" - and then they saw the HD DVD specs and thought "hey, we should add that networking sh*t too so we can match the HD DVD spec", at which point they had their 2.0 spec, but were still working on trying to get their 1.0 spec out the door.

There's no way you can argue around the fact that HD DVD did their advance thought and planning FAR better than BD. Even as the Bluray guys are struggling to get BD 1.1 working (which now looks to launch in 2008, anyway) that BD 1.1 spec STILL doesn't match the standard spec that HD DVD has used from the start.

And who gets screwed? Bluray customers...

Oh, and how about the simple fact that ALL the HD DVD players can play the recordable discs, whereas with Bluray it is a complete crap shoot, bundled with lots of excuses and double-talk.
rdjam is offline  
post #195 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 02:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,367
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

HDi does look an awful lot like webpage development. That should be quite appealing to html junkies.

Otoh, BD-J does look an awful lot like visual basic/.net development.

To me HDi looks more like Word Basic (not in a negative way) that was fairly simple to use to automate certain function in Word. A dedicate language shielding much of the complexity from the user.

VisualBasic does the same but can also go a lot deeper just like Java.

The neat trick with HDi is that the code is wrapped in a markup language.
It's just a text file.
As such in the future HDi code can be transmitted accross the web and passing firewalls etc etc.
Movie studio's can provide updated menu's for already released movies this way. (Provided such titles are prepared for this future functionality.)
Same goes for new subtitle tracks becoming available.


Compiled Java code for a VM can get into trouble if firewalls see some 'suspicous' pieces of coding. At can be unintentional and harmless but it can break web interactivity.

Another advantage for the xml style approach is that it's an open standard.
It's should be fairly easy to develop and program an menu or interactivity designer program. No more text editing required. Just paint buttons on a canvas and set property sheets to bind them to features available on disc.
The power user can always dig in script development.

This way a code generator for Java can be created too but due to the many player implementations and various VM implementations developing such an application would be a daunting task.

Quote:


That should be quite appealing to visual basic junkies (and that doesn't even count as "hardcore programming"- the C# crowd would scoff at that). Just like html (and perhaps, moreso), visual basic is amongst the most easy to pick up and run with, as far as "real" computer programming.

The ramifications make all this vs. discussion all the more humorous, since MS puts a good deal of effort in promoting both of these environments to get work done, anyway. There is no "anti-MS" angle, here.


Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #196 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 02:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,367
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 335
One very important aspect and the programmers now about this, they should if they are worth there salt.

Deadlines.

Studio's wan't to push out there titles at certain dates or call it slots.
Holiday seasons, timed releases when sequels hit the theatres etc. etc.

So how is a complicated Java based environment going to cope?
A slight change in design and extensive testing starts all over again.
How does the change impact existing players out there?

It's a bugfest waiting to happen. Especially if programmers are pushed to meet deadlines.

This happens all the time in application programming and it's fairly accepted to roll out updates and fixes later.
This is nearly impossible in a disc based content delivery system.

Heads are gonna roll in the BDA. It seems at Disney the are already started chopping of heads.

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #197 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 02:48 AM
Member
 
DemoCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowrunner View Post

Done any Java development? The JVMs on different platforms don't always behave the same way, this WILL be a headache, to think otherwise is a good indication that you haven't really worked with Java cross platform.

Have YOU done any Java development? I've been doing Java development since the alpha release (in addition to probably 100,000 lines of Perl, 10s thousands of lines of Javascript, C++ since introduction, and tons of other languages)

With the exception of a few bugs, and some Swing issues, Java runs the same on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Everyday, and I mean, everyday, (as in today), I deploy cross platform Java code. For example, today, I added functionality to a Java2D imaging server, which I develop on OS X, and deployed it Linux and Win32.

I wonder if you're done any *Javascript* and HTML/CSS development. If you want to bash cross platform issues, why not look at the truly incredibly broken CSS and Javascript implementations out there.

The idea of non-programmers writing HTML/CSS/Javascript as having it magically work beautifully due to the simplicity of it all is the height of naivete.

Let's wait and see an independent HDi implementation to make judgement on how "portable" it is.
DemoCoder is offline  
post #198 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 03:11 AM
Member
 
DemoCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post

The neat trick with HDi is that the code is wrapped in a markup language.
It's just a text file.
As such in the future HDi code can be transmitted accross the web and passing firewalls etc etc.

Compiled Java code for a VM can get into trouble if firewalls see some 'suspicous' pieces of coding. At can be unintentional and harmless but it can break web interactivity.

Umm, no. Any application gateway firewall paranoid enough to be doing content analysis isn't going to be using logic like "oh, text oK, binary NOOO". Text is not harmless, as exploits from markup can easily inject viruses too. The reality is, any downloadable HDi or Java code will have to be digitally signed, probably encrypted, with integrity checks. It is not going to be as simple as it is with Web programming. This is one of the false analogies of trying to compare HDi with "web programming"

Even today, websites don't blinding evaluate cross-included Javascript. At the very least, they use IFRAME jails, and even that has issues. JSON for example is a big use of cross-site script inclusion (it also neatly avoids the XMLHttpRequest same-domain origin security model), but if the site you are sourcing script from is untrustworthy, they can wreak havok, steal your user's cookies, inject event handlers to substitute phishing sites for real ones, etc.


The security of mobile Java code is far superior to Javascript, and that's been proven time and time again, the number of exploits from Javascript dwarf that of Java. Simply put, Java started out with a real security model, and Javascript didn't.

Quote:


Another advantage for the xml style approach is that it's an open standard It's should be fairly easy to develop and program an menu or interactivity designer program. No more text editing required. Just paint buttons on a canvas and set property sheets to bind them to features available on disc.

Oh please. HDi is not more open than Java, less so. The Java language specifications are freely available, and the source code to several Java implementations, as well as class libraries are available. Where can I download HDi specs and source code implementations?

It is not more difficult to develop a graphical IDE for generating BD-J menus. In fact, anyone doing so would probably invent an XML scene graph format, and write a small runtime BD-J library to display it, and then create an IDE to generate it.


Quote:


This way a code generator for Java can be created too but due to the many player implementations and various VM implementations developing such an application would be a daunting task.

Uh huh, and if HD-DVD "wins" and has 4 dozen players, and 5 different HDi implementations, you don't think there's going to be differences in performance and bugs and compatibility, thus making an HDi code generator as complicated as HTML code generators (like Dreamweaver which fixes up HTML to work between browsers?)

All of these assertions are nonsense. There is not inherent difference between HDi and BD-J in this regard. If you want to talk about ease of use of a high level language for newbies, that's one issue, but ease of creating multiple cleanroom implementations on different players? Completely dubious assertions.

I'll end this by pointing out, that all of HDi's core technologies have been implemented in Java already: Rhino Javascript interpreter, XPath evaluators, CSS SAC Parser and CSS DOM, and SMIL. Moreover, an open source alternative to HDi scripting, which already runs on mobile devices, exists: JavaFX. JavaFX provides far superior animation/timing framework capability than HDi with a far simpler scripting language. It combines the high level features of Javascript, with inherent "trigger" handling capability, list comprehensions, declaratively evaluated formulas with transitive dependencies (like evaluating excel spreadsheet formulas), and lots more.

What MS has done has builtin their own half-baked animation API, rather than providing a powerful and fast platform for creating one's own animation/timing framework.

I fully agree that if you're comparing "raw" BD-J vs HDi, HDi is easier to get started. But the real comparison will be HDi vs BD-J plus interactivity middleware-X.
DemoCoder is offline  
post #199 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 03:27 AM
Member
 
DemoCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowrunner View Post

May as it be, but I still stand by my remark that the HDi VM is a lot simpler and lighter in it's feature set than BD-J and thus less troubleshooting / problems down the road.

This is a fallacy. Do you think testing HTML + CSS + Javascript is easier or harder than testing a CLDC VM? When you have a low level platform, it means more of the execution happens above the platform, and therefore, there is less code implementing the platform itself. When you have a high level platform, much more functionality is subsumed behind complex high level functions, which means the platform itself has more logic to validate.

Let's take a look at the JamVM: http://jamvm.cvs.sourceforge.net/jamvm/jamvm/src/ The Java interpreter in this VM, http://jamvm.cvs.sourceforge.net/jam....c?view=markup, is roughly 2300 lines of source.

Hmm, seems pretty small, not much source. Now let's look at the Javascript interpreter in Firefox, SpiderMonkey: http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js/src The Javascript interpreter here is roughly 6300 lines of source. http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js/src

BD-J includes no XML implementation, no XPath implementation, no SMIL, no pseudo-CSS. It does include the basic Java class library (java.lang, java.io, etc), which has been validated over 10+ years and has an enormous test compatibility kit with a long history, as well as multiple implementations, all validated.

About the only thing where problems might arise is the GEM/HAVI/AWT layer, but this requires you to hand-wave away implementation issues surrounding HDi's UI implementatin code, whilest scrutinizing BD-J's.

It is the very simplicity of implementing basic Java VMs which has led to there being dozens, if not, a hundred implementations. College students regularly implement them. Dozens of USENIX/ACM/OOSPLA papers have researches implementing their own. Anyone who has looked at the bytecode spec knows it is far easier to have a provably correct implementation of a Java VM than Javascript.

In fact, there are academic papers where people have *formally* proven their VM implementations correct.

If HDi is showing less bugs at this point, it's because there is less diversity in HD-DVD players and HDi implementations, which means either a) there's not enough consumer choice or b) things will get worse when the market gets flooded with HD-DVD implementations.

All in all, there is way too much ignorance and FUD going around.
DemoCoder is offline  
post #200 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 04:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,367
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Thanks, Demo

For showing us the complexity of Java.
All the usual termonology that goes with a hyped language I see going by.

So studio's are going to hire academics to proof that their applications are compliant.

Folks are going to need RFPTC.

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #201 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 04:22 AM
Member
 
DemoCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post

Thanks, Demo
For showing us the complexity of Java.
All the usual termonology that goes with a hyped language I see going by.
So studio's are going to hire academics to proof that their applications are compliant.

Thanks for demonstrating the fact that you neither read nor comprehended my posts. In the future, do not try and discuss platform implementation issues without having some understanding of the issues involved.

The point was, Java VMs are simpler to implement than Javascript interpreters (and implementing Java JITs are easier than implementing Javascript JITs), and easier to verify implementation correctness. The fact that a VM can be formally proven correct shows that the tractability of implementing them and debugging them is somewhat easier than Javascript due to simplicity.

This is in stark contrast to your frankly uninformed opinion that implementing HDi from specs and porting to other player platforms would be easier than doing the same for a Java VM.

This issue is far more complicated than you make it, and as I've shown, it's not a language issue or low-level vs high-level, since low-level VMs be simpler to implement, verify, and more secure. The issue of how much testing and porting work has to be done between players and platforms really revolves around the I/O and graphics support layer, in terms of the complexity and number of lines of code implementing these subsystems. For which we have no good data, so any claims in these forums to the contrary are frankly ********.

However, I do not have a high level of confidence that MS's XML, XPath, CSS, SMIL, and Javascript implementations are bug free.

For a long time, people with paultry experience with these platforms have been spreading about of BS on these forums.
DemoCoder is offline  
post #202 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 04:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,367
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCoder View Post

...

This is in stark contrast to your frankly uninformed opinion that implementing HDi from specs and porting to other player platforms would be easier than doing the same for a Java VM.

...

So it really should have been HD DVD having these player profile issues.

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #203 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 04:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,367
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 335
PS, what other platforms do you have in mind to port to? HD DVD?

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #204 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 04:56 AM
Member
 
DemoCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post

So it really should have been HD DVD having these player profile issues.

How many non-Microsoft implementations of HDi exist times how many non-Toshiba/MS HD-DVD standalones are on the market vs Java VM implements * BD stand alones.

You are comparing something for which practically a single implementation exists, to something with diverse clean room implementations. Have you ever worked on an open standard committee and participated at Interop events to test implementation interoperability? Do you have any clue of the difference that having multiple clean room implementations makes?

Like I said, you don't have any basis for comparison, and don't understand that your conclusions are unjustified. Over and over, we hear the HDi FUDsters talk about the 'web programming model' of HDi, now Frank, why don't you tell me how well independent Javascript, SMIL, DOM, and CSS implementations interoperate on the Web?

Whats a matter? According to you, these simple technologies should be a cinch to implement and port to multiple platforms, so we should all be basking in a world of websites which have no compatibility issues with Firefox vs Safari vs IE vs Opera ....
DemoCoder is offline  
post #205 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 05:01 AM
Member
 
DemoCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post

PS, what other platforms do you have in mind to port to? HD DVD?

HD-DVD is a spec, not a physically realized platform. Have fun recompiling your HDi implementation for a SoC with alien CPU, 2D engine, fixed function acceleration blocks, I/O handling. And then, what if you want to buy an HDi reimplementation not written by Microsoft? It's an "open standard" according to you, "XML" , and therefore, other vendors can implement it from scratch right?

So, how compatible do you think ACME Javascript, DOM, CSS, SMIL is going to be with Microsoft's versions?

Boy or boy, I can't wait till someone finds the first Javascript exploit for HDi that allows someone to trojan or brick someone's player, or steal content.
DemoCoder is offline  
post #206 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 05:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,367
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCoder View Post

....

Like I said, you don't have any basis for comparison, and don't understand that your conclusions are unjustified. Over and over, we hear the HDi FUDsters talk about the 'web programming model' of HDi, now Frank, why don't you tell me how well independent Javascript, SMIL, DOM, and CSS implementations interoperate on the Web?

Whats a matter? According to you, these simple technologies should be a cinch to implement and port to multiple platforms, so we should all be basking in a world of websites which have no compatibility issues with Firefox vs Safari vs IE vs Opera ....

Well that is where you fail to understand that we are talking about a single target platform specified in HD DVD specifiations.

There is no need for all this porting, interopability, swing, and what else more.
The Javascript is only targeted at this single environment.
Pointing out how difficult things have proven to be on the web, now that's FUD.
If a certain HDi implementation is proven to be faulty all it requires is a player fw upgrade.
Fixing already published java code on discs is costly as the only way will be exchanging discs...

I have no doubt that you have a lot and deep knowledge about programming and Java. Noticing your social skills you must be a Guru.

I'm also convinced that you as a programmer are way to expensive for studio's for your services.

Now high level programmers who also are talented graphic artwork designer are very scarce.

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #207 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 05:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 2,367
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCoder View Post

HD-DVD is a spec, not a physically realized platform. Have fun recompiling your HDi implementation for a SoC with alien CPU, 2D engine, fixed function acceleration blocks, I/O handling. And then, what if you want to buy an HDi reimplementation not written by Microsoft? It's an "open standard" according to you, "XML" , and therefore, other vendors can implement it from scratch right?

So, how compatible do you think ACME Javascript, DOM, CSS, SMIL is going to be with Microsoft's versions?

Boy or boy, I can't wait till someone finds the first Javascript exploit for HDi that allows someone to trojan or brick someone's player, or steal content.

Well you are totally right on that one. Building the HDi implementation is a tough nut to crack.

However the Studio's do not have to deal with that level of that complexity. And I know a couple that are very happy about that.

Stereo is simply Multichannel light.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #208 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 10:53 AM
Senior Member
 
javayoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCoder View Post

HD-DVD is a spec, not a physically realized platform. Have fun recompiling your HDi implementation for a SoC with alien CPU, 2D engine, fixed function acceleration blocks, I/O handling. And then, what if you want to buy an HDi reimplementation not written by Microsoft? It's an "open standard" according to you, "XML" , and therefore, other vendors can implement it from scratch right?

So, how compatible do you think ACME Javascript, DOM, CSS, SMIL is going to be with Microsoft's versions?

Boy or boy, I can't wait till someone finds the first Javascript exploit for HDi that allows someone to trojan or brick someone's player, or steal content.

The company I work for has very strict code compliance requirements. Every line of code we ship must be evaluated by an outside authority for a whole laundry list of things including security.

We just shelved a large amount of work on a JavaScript, AJAX, HTML project (in favor of a Java-based rewrite) because the technical guys felt it would be nearly impossible to certify.

It's difficult to read the FUD in this forum. Even the insider thread is becoming unbearable.
javayoda is offline  
post #209 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 11:39 AM
Member
 
Snowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCoder View Post

Have YOU done any Java development? I've been doing Java development since the alpha release (in addition to probably 100,000 lines of Perl, 10s thousands of lines of Javascript, C++ since introduction, and tons of other languages)

No, I am the guy who gets to write the test cases and sign off on the final implementation and Java has proven over and over that it over promises and under performs.

That is not necessarily the fault of the language, but rather deadlines, crappy JVMs and bad coders, but to think similar things won't haunt BD-J is a pipe dream.

Quote:


I wonder if you're done any *Javascript* and HTML/CSS development. If you want to bash cross platform issues, why not look at the truly incredibly broken CSS and Javascript implementations out there.

Sure, there are problems too, but the VM is a lot simpler, testing for compliance is a lot easier than compared to what you get with Java.

Sure, they can re-use code in their Java coding and (hopefully) build up a certified code base, but I still believe that some vendors will cut corners, both on the Java code itself as well as the JVM and this will make for a lousy customer experience.

Quote:


The idea of non-programmers writing HTML/CSS/Javascript as having it magically work beautifully due to the simplicity of it all is the height of naivete.

I was never arguing that way.

Quote:


Let's wait and see an independent HDi implementation to make judgement on how "portable" it is.

What do you define as "indepndent"? All the HD DVDs out there today make use of it one way or the other. When the Venture player comes out this winter this will be the first real test to see how easy it is to implement a HDi VM.
Snowrunner is offline  
post #210 of 232 Old 08-29-2007, 11:51 AM
Member
 
Snowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCoder View Post

This is a fallacy. Do you think testing HTML + CSS + Javascript is easier or harder than testing a CLDC VM? When you have a low level platform, it means more of the execution happens above the platform, and therefore, there is less code implementing the platform itself. When you have a high level platform, much more functionality is subsumed behind complex high level functions, which means the platform itself has more logic to validate.

The instruction set on the HDi VM is a lot more restricted than in a JVM. So yes, I do believe that it is easier to test for.

Quote:


Let's take a look at the JamVM: http://jamvm.cvs.sourceforge.net/jamvm/jamvm/src/ The Java interpreter in this VM, http://jamvm.cvs.sourceforge.net/jam....c?view=markup, is roughly 2300 lines of source.

Hmm, seems pretty small, not much source. Now let's look at the Javascript interpreter in Firefox, SpiderMonkey: http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js/src The Javascript interpreter here is roughly 6300 lines of source. http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js/src

Comparing the complexity of the underlying software to the length of code is a bit of a fallacy, don't you think? You can cram a lot of functionality in very small (code) packages. But as you are a developer I am sure you know that.

Quote:


BD-J includes no XML implementation, no XPath implementation, no SMIL, no pseudo-CSS. It does include the basic Java class library (java.lang, java.io, etc), which has been validated over 10+ years and has an enormous test compatibility kit with a long history, as well as multiple implementations, all validated.

About the only thing where problems might arise is the GEM/HAVI/AWT layer, but this requires you to hand-wave away implementation issues surrounding HDi's UI implementatin code, whilest scrutinizing BD-J's.

So you're telling me Java is bug free after 10 years and no Java application ever falls over the JVM or itself?

Quote:


It is the very simplicity of implementing basic Java VMs which has led to there being dozens, if not, a hundred implementations. College students regularly implement them. Dozens of USENIX/ACM/OOSPLA papers have researches implementing their own. Anyone who has looked at the bytecode spec knows it is far easier to have a provably correct implementation of a Java VM than Javascript.

That may be as it is, but that only addresses one of the concerns. The idea "oh everybody does it it's easy" means there won't be issues is just a pipe dream too.

Let me sum this up again, the implementation of HDi is very narrow, it is only supposed to to a few things, testing for these eventualities is a lot easier than having an "open environment" that Java presents. Even IF all the JVMs are correctly implemented, 100% bug free and adhering to spec, this still means nothing if a programmer decides to get smart.

Quote:


In fact, there are academic papers where people have *formally* proven their VM implementations correct.

For all the players? I don't really care what happens in the computer world, we're talking about CE devices here.

Quote:


If HDi is showing less bugs at this point, it's because there is less diversity in HD-DVD players and HDi implementations, which means either a) there's not enough consumer choice or b) things will get worse when the market gets flooded with HD-DVD implementations.

We'll see what happens when the first Chinese HD DVD player lands and see how it performs. There are enough discs out there by now to cause some kind of problem if you are right. I still don't think that HDi will be as problematic as BD-J.

Quote:


All in all, there is way too much ignorance and FUD going around.

Either that or colooured glasses.
Snowrunner is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off