Originally Posted by HuntzHD
And EMCAScript implementations are fast
It is a common misconception to think HDi is "ECMAScript." It is not. Large amount of functionality for HDi is built directly into the engine and does not any script code to work. For example, if you want to draw something and move it across the screen (super common operation), there is no script involved. You simply give the graphics to the engine, specify the direction and speed and it will do that for you, all at machine speed. Script is used to add logic to such things ("if button A is pressed, then all this HDi function").
Now if you do use a lot of script for the logic, of course you can suffer some performance issues. And that is where good design comes from.
You should try doing something non-trivial in jscript sometime. It would be many many times slower than a java equivalent.
That is because the browser does not have the HDi "intrinsics" which deal with all the common operations you might need in an interactive system for video. In other words, the browser is a general purpose machine, so like Java you mention, it lacks specialized functions for the task. So you wind up implementing things in script and that is indeed slow. But per above, such is not the case with HDi.
java is plagued by startup speed on other platforms. I don't know what the consequences of that are for BD-J.
Start-up is a big issue for implementation fo titles. One has to have a good system and implementation skills to hide the graphics and other big objects in the pipeline so that you don't sit there forever while they get loaded into memory before the title starts to run. I am sure some of you have seen this happen on some titles.
By the way, I hope this post doesn't become "prove HDi is better than BD-J." I won't get into that since it is academic at this point and at any rate, there are hundreds of posts on this forum. So please, please don't go there. I only mention the above in the context of understanding how the systems work.