Is your disappoint to do with mobile technology generally or C2 using an interpreted language. There are major problems with developing for a mobile platform when compared to desktop.
How important is WebGL Effects on mobile to everyone? Cause these are really, really hard to code .
I might have to hire someone to code it for me.
On mobile they're less important to me currently because they slam performance so hard so I avoid them anyway, but as hardware improves I'll want to use them more. Maybe the first version can skip them?
Oh, and Arima - you argue "there's too much uncertainty", but with a native port you'll have uncertainty over supported features instead. As I said before, a native engine is not going to be a magic bullet where everything works perfectly, it will tradeoff performance for other porting incompatibilities.
I don't think that's an issue of uncertainty because before starting on a project we could check to find out what features are supported on each platform. That actually sounds like certainty to me. And again, native can support the vast majority of what most games need.
I also absolutely cannot see why examples of single bugs like memory management is an argument for the extraordinarily expensive and time consuming development of native engines. It is *obviously* much easier to fix those problems first before even considering it. This is an ongoing work in progress, but we will get there.
Well, I didn't mean that was the only reason, I meant for all the reasons combined.
With modern devices with an up to date browser and OS, performance is already outstanding: as I said before my Nexus 5 can outperform some of the desktop machines in our office on some benchmarks.
There's an argument to make a native engine to support older devices, but a native engine could easily take so long to develop to maturity that the next generation of phones and software updates would have already filtered down and far reduced the problem. This already happened with desktop. I dread the idea that we spend a year holding up everything else to write a native engine, and then by the time we're done HTML5 performance on mobiles is not a problem. What a colossal waste that would be!
I understand, but that's the same problem that performance is always behind the competition. Also, again, I suggested hiring someone instead of tackling it all yourself so it wouldn't hold up all the other features so much.
I still believe that C2 should have native to truly be considered a serious dev tool so we wouldn't have to rely on hope for the exporters. I mean, imagine visual studio or whatever you're using to develop C2 suddenly decided that you couldn't deploy your creations to XP and vista anymore. That'd be insane, right? You wouldn't want to rely on a tool that pulls stuff like that. That's basically what happened to us with chrome and node webkit. I guess I could stick with the old version of NW but what about bug fixes and all the enhancements I'd miss out on, like the improved controller support, and what if C2 is updated to require the new version of node webkit? Then I'd be stuck on an old version of C2. These kinds of things are just unacceptable and are simply going to turn people away from C2, which I very much want to succeed and thrive to it's full potential!
Anyway, I've made my argument, and I don't know what else I can say to convince you, so I'll stop trying for now. I'll continue to use C2 regardless, and look forward to Tomsstudio's exporter as well as the ongoing improvements to C2 itself.
Node-webkit is perfect.
It's not. Node webkit has no hardware acceleration for XP and vista.