4 ms·

Of course it's damn impressive, but it doesn't seem very useful to me. Nobody uses Flash for the language (actionscript is a terrible mash-up of javascript and

Of course it's damn impressive, but it doesn't seem very useful to me. Nobody uses Flash for the language (actionscript is a terrible mash-up of javascript and Java, and haXe is not a lot better), or because we think the virtual machine is awesome in some way. Simply, we use it to bridge the gap between what web browsers can do and what native apps can do (access to webcams and microphones, local files, real tcp/ip sockets, etc, etc). Having said all that, who knows - maybe web browsers really will eventually bridge those gaps themselves, and this will just be used to run legacy Flash code. It's possible I guess.

jacquesm 17y ago
I invite you to switch your flash player off for a bit and see how many sites use it for all kinds of stuff. It's a nuisance but it is so pervasive it's not even funny.
- artpop 17y ago
  I already have, it is wonderful. http://github.com/rentzsch/clicktoflash http://github.com/rentzsch/clicktoflash
- eru 17y ago
  I can get by without ads pretty fine. (Though I still have the flash turned on for the occasional video or game.)
racketman4 17y ago
Actionscript 3 isn't that bad.
- abstractbill 17y ago
  Compared to javascript though? (that's the point after all). I definitely prefer javascript to as3.
  - scotth 17y ago
    as2 was sweet though. Object.watch and __resolve() were a lot of fun to work with.
    - gb 17y ago
      You can use the Proxy object to do similar things to __resolve(), but it's slightly less flexible as you have to extend the class.
  - jetako 17y ago
    Compared to javascript, yes. True class-based inheritance, optional strict typing, getter setters, and methods and closures retain class scope. What's not to like? Null-reference errors?
wensing 17y ago
How is it not useful for people that need to be successful in an era when browsers aren't bridging those gaps themselves?
- WilliamLP 17y ago
  Because a user is going to get the same experience already with the latest Flash player, in any browser. In JavaScript, there are numerous differences, ranging from the subtle to the not-so-subtle (do they even have canvas?) "Standards" aren't worth anything if they aren't, you know, standard.
  - wensing 17y ago
    I think you're actually agreeing with me here. I am saying that this project Gordon has appeal for folks that may want to do something like display a SWF in iPhone Safari.
  - dutchflyboy 17y ago
    > ranging from the subtle to the not-so-subtle (do they even have canvas?) That's the beauty of this thing. It works with svg -> supported by all browsers (with the obvious exception of IE, although I think it shouldn't be too hard to change it to support VML).
Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
>this will just be used to run legacy Flash code Wether flash stays dominant or not, this would still provide a way to run flash code without any proprietary plugin, and in any modern browser, so the interest is still big, from an user point of view
JulesLt 17y ago
While no one uses Flash for the language, there are a lot of (non-developers) out there who use Flash (MX,CS4 or whatever it's called this week) to produce animation, etc - and we're still a long way of having a similar set of tools that produce 'browser native' content. I'm intrigued as to how much Flash it does cover.

jacquesm 17y ago

I invite you to switch your flash player off for a bit and see how many sites use it for all kinds of stuff. It's a nuisance but it is so pervasive it's not even funny.

artpop 17y ago
I already have, it is wonderful. http://github.com/rentzsch/clicktoflash http://github.com/rentzsch/clicktoflash
eru 17y ago
I can get by without ads pretty fine. (Though I still have the flash turned on for the occasional video or game.)

racketman4 17y ago

Actionscript 3 isn't that bad.

abstractbill 17y ago
Compared to javascript though? (that's the point after all). I definitely prefer javascript to as3.
- scotth 17y ago
  as2 was sweet though. Object.watch and __resolve() were a lot of fun to work with.
  - gb 17y ago
    You can use the Proxy object to do similar things to __resolve(), but it's slightly less flexible as you have to extend the class.
- jetako 17y ago
  Compared to javascript, yes. True class-based inheritance, optional strict typing, getter setters, and methods and closures retain class scope. What's not to like? Null-reference errors?

wensing 17y ago

How is it not useful for people that need to be successful in an era when browsers aren't bridging those gaps themselves?

WilliamLP 17y ago
Because a user is going to get the same experience already with the latest Flash player, in any browser. In JavaScript, there are numerous differences, ranging from the subtle to the not-so-subtle (do they even have canvas?) "Standards" aren't worth anything if they aren't, you know, standard.
- wensing 17y ago
  I think you're actually agreeing with me here. I am saying that this project Gordon has appeal for folks that may want to do something like display a SWF in iPhone Safari.
- dutchflyboy 17y ago
  > ranging from the subtle to the not-so-subtle (do they even have canvas?) That's the beauty of this thing. It works with svg -> supported by all browsers (with the obvious exception of IE, although I think it shouldn't be too hard to change it to support VML).

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago

>this will just be used to run legacy Flash code Wether flash stays dominant or not, this would still provide a way to run flash code without any proprietary plugin, and in any modern browser, so the interest is still big, from an user point of view

JulesLt 17y ago

While no one uses Flash for the language, there are a lot of (non-developers) out there who use Flash (MX,CS4 or whatever it's called this week) to produce animation, etc - and we're still a long way of having a similar set of tools that produce 'browser native' content. I'm intrigued as to how much Flash it does cover.