Live data from Hacker News

Flash vs HTML - Waste Invaders

flashvhtml.com

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Flash vs HTML - Waste Invaders

#41

I'm not voting because you require me to "like" you on facebook. I wouldn't have a problem giving you a like if you weren't trying to manipulate me. I know this is not a scientific poll but just a marketing effort disguised as one, and that's ok, but I would try to be less disingenuous about it. Nice game, btw.

"Manipulate me", oh people take this so seriously.

Re: Flash vs HTML - Waste Invaders

#43

I'm not voting because you require me to "like" you on facebook. I wouldn't have a problem giving you a like if you weren't trying to manipulate me. I know this is not a scientific poll but just a marketing effort disguised as one, and that's ok, but I would try to be less disingenuous about it. Nice game, btw.

"Manipulate me", oh people take this so seriously.

I wouldn't play any game that required me to like anything.

Re: Flash vs HTML - Waste Invaders

#45
I'm not really sure I could tell them apart in an ABX test. But it's not like the game is demanding in any way. The amount of sprites is way too low and they're all bitmaps. Furthermore, you don't need the webaudio api to playback an audio track and few effects concurrently, like this game does. Standard elements with the preload attribute work fine [1].

What I'd like to see is a comparison between 2D vector graphic performance of Flash compared to Web technologies as implemented in browsers. In my experience browsers are still very slow at that (without WebGL) while Flash had excellent performance for as long as I remember.

[1]http://robert.ocallahan.org/2011/11/latency-of-html5-sounds....

Re: Flash vs HTML - Waste Invaders

#46
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someone can (in theory) develop a mobile friendly, efficient (and open source) runtime I don't think the format is documented to that level. And even if it is, it is very complex and hard to get right for other implementations (and it is a moving target controlled by one player, a bit like MS office formats). And why bother? If you have the choice, why not go with HTML5 which already has some good and very fast free…

Yes the SWF format has not been fully documented [1] by Adobe to make it easy to develop an implementation. But so was the case with Office documents, but several open source projects can now successfully read and write them. EDIT: It seems that the Flash Player EULA is a major roadblock. Once installed, you cannot perform any reverse engineering on it [2]. [1]: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html [2]: http://en.wik…

Even if it were to be documented, I imagine it would read something like:

"This API works exactly like this. Except when the user disables local storage. Oh wait, also not when the Flash version is 11.0.635.24.b. Well, also it's different if you don't have a security-inst-config.xml installed in the home directory of the user under the path .adobe/flash/securityPolicy. OH! Also it works completely differently if you're using HTTPS. And it won't work at all if you're trying to access any server without a security policy defined on the DNS TXT record third from the top. Also there are some slight issues between 3 and 5 PM GMT on Tuesdays, but a workaround can be found on the Macromedia support forums."

Re: Flash vs HTML - Waste Invaders

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someone can (in theory) develop a mobile friendly, efficient (and open source) runtime I don't think the format is documented to that level. And even if it is, it is very complex and hard to get right for other implementations (and it is a moving target controlled by one player, a bit like MS office formats). And why bother? If you have the choice, why not go with HTML5 which already has some good and very fast free…

> And why bother? If you have the choice, why not go with HTML5 which already has some good and very fast free implementations available? Well, I think this demo kind of proves why not: it doesn't work the same way on everyones browser. We've been talking for years now about html5 games obsoleting flash, but it doesn't seem to be coming together does it? My opinion on why not? We've got some serious problems with the…

As someone who built and maintained a large-scale Flex app for 5 years, none of Flash's advantages are worth the countless unpredictable difficulties you WILL encounter. It's not a stable platform. Move on.

Maybe the story is entirely different for games, but I can't see how it could be that different.

Re: Flash vs HTML - Waste Invaders

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And why bother? If you have the choice, why not go with HTML5 which already has some good and very fast free implementations available? Well, I think this demo kind of proves why not: it doesn't work the same way on everyones browser. We've been talking for years now about html5 games obsoleting flash, but it doesn't seem to be coming together does it? My opinion on why not? We've got some serious problems with the…

> Well, I think this demo kind of proves why not: it doesn't work the same way on everyones browser. Still, you are comparing this to flash, which has only one complete implementation at all which is only available on a subset of platforms and not open source. This number of platforms is decreasing, not increasing (ie, Android dropped). > That doesn't really help you distribute your games safely over the web to multi…

> Still, you are comparing this to flash, which has only one complete implementation at all which is only available on a subset of platforms and not open source. This number of platforms is decreasing, not increasing (ie, Android dropped).

Indeed, there are problems with both implementations. I'm not saying that flash is the way forward at all, just that I'm starting to doubt that html5 technologies can actually achieve on a technical level what flash has acheived in a reasonable time frame.

Ignoring ideological issues for the moment (which are important too, but we could be here all day) the major benefeit of html5 right now is that your games can run well on gnu/linux machines, on which flash performs terribly. Techinically you can also target smartphones/tablets, but the performance here is really quite bad on almost all devices. So there is this promise of true cross platform coverage that isn't really being acheived. The major downside is this browser incompatibility stuff we've already discussed that is really hampering the platform, and the performance issues, which also varies wildly with browsers.

> Agreed, no one solved the problem of cross-platform application development (both desktop and mobile) yet. And flash doesn't succeed much, if any, better than HTML5 in this regard. But looking forward HTML5 looks more promising too me.

We're in agreement here, except for that last part. Will html5 (or 6 or 10) actually ever live up to what has been promised? Or should we be betting on a 3rd player at this point?

Re: Flash vs HTML - Waste Invaders

#50
When comparing Flash and HTML5, Flash wins 4 out of the 5 criteria but the balance scales end up with them both equal.

Also, Flash gets a 0% for mobile browsers as new phones don't get Flash Player. I'm willing to be that a higher number of smart phones in use today have Flash Player installed (all but iOS and recent Android) than have a browser that supports all the HTML5 required for the game.

Post reply on HN