Cannon.js: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:58, 27 April 2017

Revision as of 23:02, 27 April 2017

Line 4:

{{AFC comment|1=I will look at this and see if I can accept it. There are reliable sources cited that are independent of Stefan Hedman, the developer. That would seem to be enough. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 22:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}}

{{AFC comment|1=I did not find independent news. However I did find an in-depth technical walkthrough on MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) that builds a game (bowling game) using babylon.js and and cannon.js from January of last year, see reference..<ref></ref> and also, a somewhat older but still correct review <ref></ref>. This library does not get mentioned in news, mostly because its code is stable and it "just works". [[User:Fourvelocity|Fourvelocity]]}}

{{AFC comment|1=I would hardly call it a "stunning dearth of [[WP:RS]] reviews" when there is an MSDN article on the Microsoft home page (invited blog on a curated journal), an MSDN blog on the Microsoft home page, a demo on the Mozilla MDN page, an arbitrated journal and third-party demos which include a cloth simulation and game. This is a really useful library and it doesn't get discussed because it "just works" - but it in fact quite popular judging by Google. When searching for "Javascript physics engine" on Google, cannon.js is the third result, and the only one written natively in javascript. Please reconsider, I am an unbiased party who is trying to help out visitors to Wikipedia who want to choose between the available (and stable) javascript physics engines. [[User:Fourvelocity|Fourvelocity]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 10:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)</small>}}