Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 372 posts

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#311

Post by Olreich »

josefx wrote: post #250
recursive wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That point is very curious, since you actually can email someone an .html file, and it will "just work".

With resources embedded in the highly "compressed" base64 encoding. Quite a few email services will probably block those html files just because they end up stupidly large unless your content is text only and doesn't include half a dozen java script frameworks to manage basic animations.

Those same email services blocked SWF files too because they were dangerous. This is no different.

As for size, browsers really should allow gzip encoding for html files from your desktop. Would pack all the inlined crap down to a reasonable size and then you could transfer things around better.

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#312

Post by [deleted] »

mulmen wrote: post #302
j45 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet generations seem to be much quicker, with big shifts every 3 to 5 years. Mary Meeker's yearly summary often illustrates aspects of this.

Not sure I follow. Does “boomer” not mean “person born between 1946 and 1964”? Does it just mean ”old” now?

[deleted]

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#313

Post by mulmen »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #309
mulmen wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The turn if the century really was a different time. > boomer tech Since we are talking about events ~25 years ago isn’t all of this “boomer tech” because the boomers were at the peak of their careers at the time? Aren’t they the ones that created, like, everything ? Seems like a strangely modern phrase to use to describe what is now ancient history. Also I’m not that old but I already see the ageism in tech. I see i…

They are using "boomer" similarly to how the word is used in "baby boomer," as in a sudden growth. Netscape was the hot new browser. Probably one of those words on its way out, but they aren't being ageist.

Ah, yeah, that reading does make more sense. Guess I have a raw nerve.

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#314

Post by Olreich »

AshleysBrain wrote: post #285
olyjohn wrote: post #11

The tweet mentions that you could 'just' send an SWF file to someone and it played. Well, if anybody had to fix a computer, or hosted anything Flash-based during that era, then they would know that's bullshit. Sure maybe with the standalone Flash player it worked allright, but that's not how people really used Flash. Even in my experience, a single SWF running locally didn't always work across all versions of Flash p…

Honest question: why does it matter if it's one file or not? For example if you're deploying to a web server, it doesn't seem a big deal if you're uploading one file or several... so why the issue?

Another reason for single-file distribution is the ease of installation and running. If you can run from a single executable with all resources embedded in it, then users have a very easy time of things, they just download the program, then run it.

Apple's ".app" distribution format works just like that, while allowing the developer to have a directory structure for their convenience. App stores solve the problem in other ways, but there is no good app store for the web.

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#315

Post by hartator »

stupidcar wrote: post #120

I've come across a lot of similar sentiment from ex-Flash devs, who romanticise its heyday as a period of fertile creativity (true) and say that HTML5/JS/CSS/SVG is an inadequate replacement (false). In truth, the fundamental capabilities of the modern web platform matches and typically exceeds anything that was offered by Flash. What these people are really lamenting is the ease of authorship that Flash provided to…

> The Flash authorship tools were free

Flash MX was a paid tool.

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#316

Post by azangru »

indymike wrote: post #310

Flash and HTML5 never were the same thing. Flash always seemed to be an easier and more approachable way to do applets than Java. As it aged, it also became a kind of universal functionality plug-in that let people build experiences that you just couldn't do with HTML and JavaScript at the time. The spiritual successor to Flash (and Java applets) is probably more WebAssembly than HTML5 - although many parts of HTML5…

> The spiritual successor to Flash is probably more WebAssembly than HTML5

The author's point is that Flash had GUI authoring tools and was "content-first", whereas js and infinitely more so webassembly are programmer-first. It doesn't bother me a bit (am a programmer), but it does bother him.

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#317

Post by Olreich »

EamonnMR wrote: post #303
shawnz wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author argues that a tool like Flash the authoring software should exist, but makes no argument about Flash the runtime. An authoring software just like Flash could exist for the HTML runtime -- it isn't the nature of HTML which is the problem. Thus it's not HTML which has to "catch up", but vendors of authoring software.

We'll there we have it: we lived in a world with good tooling for creative works but a bad runtime, and we replaced the runtime without replacing the authoring tools. I think that's a shame.

Adobe produced Flash and the authoring tools. They mostly gave up when Flash's runtime was deemed bad. Turns out, they have an authoring tool for HTML5 that looks a lot like flash: https://www.adobe.com/products/animate.html

So, yeah, I'd question why Animate isn't good enough to fill Flash's role.

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#319

Post by dTal »

pjmlp wrote: post #186
danShumway wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I don't think the Linux audience in 1999-2008 was exactly who most of us were targeting Well, but... yeah. I know people weren't targeting Linux in the early 2000's, that was the problem. That's what I'm saying. One of the biggest advantages of dumping Flash was that it got replaced with a runtime that worked on every OS even if people weren't deliberately targeting it. I'm saying that's a big enough advantage…

The same audience still doesn't matter today, because most just use GPUs with drivers that get black listed by browsers, making WebGL useless.

First I've heard of it - WebGL works perfectly for me, on every one of my diverse Linux desktops. Intel, AMD, nVidia, never had an issue. I've got a Google Earth tab open right now.

Re: HTML5 still doesn't replicate what mattered about Flash

#320

Post by cogman10 »

EamonnMR wrote: post #303
shawnz wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author argues that a tool like Flash the authoring software should exist, but makes no argument about Flash the runtime. An authoring software just like Flash could exist for the HTML runtime -- it isn't the nature of HTML which is the problem. Thus it's not HTML which has to "catch up", but vendors of authoring software.

We'll there we have it: we lived in a world with good tooling for creative works but a bad runtime, and we replaced the runtime without replacing the authoring tools. I think that's a shame.

The web is different now. Back in the days of flash, "platforms" weren't really a thing and social media was pretty much "whoever has figured out how to host a webpage".

We don't live in that era anymore (and I sort of miss it :( ). We live in an era of SaaS and major platforms. For 90% of "custom webpages" wordpress covers it. For the 9% not covered, flash wouldn't really be a good fit. The loss is for that 1% of creative fun junk by hobbyist that's just missing all together. Flash made it easy for a novice to sculpt something. However, it didn't make it easy for a business to maintain something.

Post reply on HN