Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

FLASH IS DEAD

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 0:03

Why does 4chan even have a /f/ ???

HTML 5 makes flash completely useless

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 0:06

>>1
HTML 5 is the complete and final version of HTML. No other additions are necessary and there is no more room for innovation left in web browsers

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 0:37

u guys are fucking retarded.  html5 is still far behind the feature set of flash.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 0:44

>>3

And yet it still manages to eclipse Flash

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 0:51

>>4
Java user detected

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 1:03

>>5
that doesn't matter because no one actually uses the features that aren't in html5. if you want those features that no one uses, svg is a lot easier to use than flash.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 1:07

>>6
I've never seen svg used anywhere before, save in tutorials for using svg.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 1:16

>>7
for the same reason that no one ever uses those features in flash.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 2:00

>>5

Every time I consider learning Java I crack the book and lol it closed

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 2:15

because html5 will take 10 years to become standardized you ass

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 4:39

>>7
Wikipedia uses svg

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 5:11

>>11
No one cares.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 6:02

>>12
I care.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 10:47

>>7
KDE, Gnome and Haiku depend upon the SVG standard as an important part of their systems. They actually use SVG images in their systems.

>>12
I care.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 10:49

>>14
No you don't

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 11:27

>>6
SVG doesn't begin to close the feature gap (or add anything useful, really), and it's generally unsupported.  Why do you keep bringing it up?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 12:05

it's generally unsupported
Even Microsoft is getting in on SVG, so it's likely that it will be used more often in the future.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 12:23

>>11
Wikipedia does not use SVG. It allows uploading of SVG pictures, which are then converted to PNG for display. You can access the original SVG, but usually only raster versions are served to you.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 12:50

>>16
name one feature of flash that's not in html5+css+javascript or svg+css+smil+javascript.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 13:11

>>16
Supported on all browsers (incl. IE9) and able to play back Flash itself (see http://paulirish.com/work/gordon/demos/ for example). And yes, it's very useful, it's a vector graphics format, what else do you suggest people use? Server-side rendering and serving as raster images?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 14:21

>>20
So can you put all the files necessary for a rich multimedia Flash file into one file without Flash? How about handling file uploads or storing data locally? Or dare I ask about webcam / microphone support, for video chat? Or interacting with the operating system in any way at all? Flash has better, more developed, much more consistent media playback functionality than HTML5. Flash is mature and robust, whereas SVG is just now starting to catch on thanks to that little pissing match between Apple and Adobe. It's been around for what, ten years? and no one gave a shit until now. Meanwhile, Flash runs everywhere except inside of Steve Jobs's Reality Distortion Field and it has for years. My phone plays Flash just fine -- I browse /f/ with it sometimes.

Flash naysayers will push for whatever comes along that superficially seems like a substitute without giving much thought to the wide variety of use cases for which Flash is often the better or even only solution. Perhaps rather than reinventing everything it would have been more productive to draw on Flash's maturity and convince Adobe to make it into a proper open standard. Of course, it'd take a fairly large company to do the convincing -- and Apple could have been in that position, but they decided to be jackasses about the whole thing.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 14:25

>>21
Your ignorance is showing.

Not that I'm against Flash (actually I am, but I hate Jobs so much that black is white and white is octarine) but your diatribe there... it's pretty bad.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 14:54

>>21
can you put all the files necessary for a rich multimedia Flash file into one file without Flash?
This is a misfeature of Flash. I don't know what you really want: embedding a sub-document in another document (like advertisements in a parent page)? Or truly encapsulating everything in a single file (as in a single URL gets requested to the server via HTTP)? Both are possible with HTML, but the second one is rather detrimental.

How about handling file uploads or storing data locally?
Both of these can be done in HTML. Old browsers have some limitations, but all currently shipping browsers (except for IE) match Flash feature-wise (I suppose what you want is the ability for the user to select several files to upload at once, and the ability to store large amounts (a few megabytes) of data locally).

Or dare I ask about webcam / microphone support, for video chat?
This is a valid complaint.

Or interacting with the operating system in any way at all?
This one's just bogus. Care to elaborate?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 15:16

>>23
As for file upload, I was referring to the ability to upload a large file while monitoring its progress, with better capabilities than the file posting seen with standard HTML. Uploading files with a web browser really is a joke.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 15:38

>>24
Ah, just

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 15:44

>>19
Sockets. Flash is by very far the only acceptable option. Implemented (as opposed to "specified and supported in lolchrome") and available on every PC browser, and mobile devices used by the heterosexual demographics.
Alternatives to sockets are out of the window for grown-ups who have to pay for their CPU and bandwidth.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 15:59

>>26
While sockets are the proper solution, the "alternatives" you mention do achieve near-zero CPU and bandwidth usage.

Are Google gown-ups? Because the whole Gmail thing (including instant messaging) does not use sockets.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 16:29

Sockets in Flash is not something I'd boast about, and I'd rather it didn't exist.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 17:42

every 5 minutes

I don't think you understand the problem sockets solve

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 18:19

>>29
How so? The overhead described in >>27 corresponds to a channel of communication where either the server or the client can send data anytime, without waiting for the other one.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 21:48

>>23
But how do I upload an HTML5 non-Flash on /f/ if it's scattered over a thousand files?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 22:20

>>31
Ideally you'd allow uploading zip files which would get extracted to a folder of their own, but as it's been already said, you can put everything inside a single file if you so desire.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-03 23:59

>>32
Yeah, that totally doesn't sound like any sort of potential security risk. Now instead of just allowing one file type, we've got to make a .zip extractor that also checks each file to make sure it's not something stupid like a php script.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 0:09

>>33
No, you just place everything under a folder which is configured to never execute anything - very basic server config.

Or for extra paranoia you could store each file named by its hash in a non-accessible folder, then redirect requests to the public folder to a script which fetches up the real file.

I mean, your average phpshit forum allows attachments of any type. Big deal. This is silly stuff really, web stuff is a security minefield and this isn't a very hard problem compared with all the shit that goes on.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 8:52

>>34
I have a better idea: make tar a web format.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 9:31

>>34
But you don't want to add potential problems, regardless of how "basic" they might be. Ideally the basic premise of sharing something shouldn't involve lit fuses even if you can put them out easily, and pointing to PHP as insecure is a terrible argument for other things to be insecure as well.

>>35 might be on to something. However given by the (rather screwball) standard of Java's JAR files, maybe zip would be better. I suppose the browser would then fetch that and load its index.html.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 10:08

make retard a web format.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 10:11

MAKE MY ANUS a web format.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 14:09

>>34
This is why Flash won't go away any time soon.
Having a single swf file is often much more convenient. Stupid tar/zip tricks (unless implemented directly into the browser to work exactly like swf) are just a hassle.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 14:26

>>36
Actually I mentioned tar specifically because it is not a compression format. Much of the time your assets aren't going to benefit much from further compression, and if they do tar doesn't care about which compressor you use.

>>39
You know how self-extracting executables are made on Unix? Most of the time it's a gzip'd (and sometimes tar'd) binary appended to a bash script that pushes the appended content through a pipe to gzip, optionally calls tar, executes the program and optionally cleans up after itself. The idea here is that you can always embed the archive in a chunk of JS and no one would know the difference.

This of course assumes that the problems identified by the big players to be solved in HTML5 will actually find some solution. I have no idea how well it works at present. Given that they've recognized them and also intend to duplicate the power of Flash, I'm not sure why anyone would think it's "not gonna happen" even if it hasn't quite yet.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 15:53

>>35
you don't want to add potential problems, regardless of how "basic" they might be
Flash

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 16:08

I feel I should point out something no one seems yet to have hit upon.

Flash is a bytecode format. You're technically not restricted to using ActionShit at all; if someone cared enough they could make an SWF compiler for (e.g.) Scheme.

I think the other dubious advantages and disadvantages of either Flash or that disorganized mess of Javascript+HTML+SVG+Canvas+whatever else pale in comparison to the flexibility of having a bytecode format into which all manner of languages can be compiled.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 16:16

I feel I should point out something no one seems yet to have hit upon.

HTML is a free format. You're technically not restricted to spending MoneyDollars at all; if someone cared enough they could make a charitable donation to (e.g.) W3C.

I think the other dubious advantages and disadvantages of either HTML5 or that disorganized mess of Javascript+Flash+Flex+whatever else pale in comparison to the flexibility of having a free format into which no money must be invested.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 16:18

>>42
The amount of misunderstanding in your post is incredible. Are you suggesting that a bytecode format is somehow more versatile than a Turing-complete programming language?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 18:30

>>42
Your post is dubious. Really, "whatever dubious" is not something you get to say with a straight face. It reeks of willful ignorance and prejudiced derogation. In short, all you said was "I don't like it and therefore it sucks."

Which is a shame because otherwise you might have had a point. I guess I'll never know because you'll probably respond, if at all, with some meaningless defensive protest.

But please do consider a proper attempt at articulating yourself. I'm sure you can take down >>44 with a reasoned argument.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 18:49

Flash is a bytecode format.
Bytecode for a VM for running ECMAScript.

if someone cared enough they could make an SWF compiler for (e.g.) Scheme.
Yes, please. Actionscript 3 is Javascript with Java and ENTERPRISE dumped all over it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 19:00

>>46
They took away way too many worthwhile JavaScript features which leaned towards Scheme and added too much ENTERPRISE crap to replace it with. It's still usable, it's faster due making the language less dynamic, but it's also more dull and less lispish.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-04 19:55

>>47
This may surprise you, but those Scheme-like JS features came well after Flash and ActionScript were introduced.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 5:34

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -