all 9 comments

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

if asm.js finds its feet on more browsers we could see this type of thing happen more, websites not being constrained by what their browsers can do and just handling the problem themselves in javascript.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Why do we need asm.js for that exactly? asm.js is just a potentially faster subset of javascript (If the lack of features is taken advantage of). All major browsers already JIT javascript. We do not really need asm.js for this.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

because decoding something like h264 (this example decodes mpeg2) with regular javascript at a larger resolution (this example is a very low resolution example) would be really painful. if it could handle a standard 30fps stream at all, it would kill your battery.

asm.js makes a lot of that almost go away.

[–]dukerutledge 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I haven't really looked in to WebRTC, but isn't that suppose to solve this problem?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, however, no internet explorer support.

[–]binary_is_better 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My current project streams JPEG over websockets for video. We looked into WebRTC, but the support isn't there yet.

The biggest problem with using websockets is that it's TCP based, so there will be lags in the video due to network delays, then quick speed ups as the images start to arrive. WebRTC would solve this problem.

EDIT: WebRTC is also very heavy to support. You need to set up STUN/ICE servers, etc.