3 ms·

The reason that people are hammering at Flash so much is that there's one implementation of Flash and, for years, Adobe and Macromedia actively tried to stifle

by mdasen 17y ago

The reason that people are hammering at Flash so much is that there's one implementation of Flash and, for years, Adobe and Macromedia actively tried to stifle alternative implementations. Why does this matter? Over time, when there's competition between implementations, they all tend to get worked on and improve. Look at Apple's JavaScriptCore and Google's V8. Heck, even Firefox has improved JavaScript performance a lot compared to previous versions and Internet Explorer. The competition is so important that Microsoft has put a lot of effort into IE9 making JavaScript a lot faster there. Right now, most implementations of HTML5, Canvas, and SVG aren't so fast. I've seen demos that show them getting fewer frames per second than Flash for animations. But the point is that they're open technologies whose implementations can and will improve. Flash has been a closed technology for so long and Adobe has taken that lack of competition and ignored performance concerns. With video, it's the same situation. While browsers might not be using less CPU right now playing H.264, there's the potential for better decoding in the future. VLC uses very little resources on my Mac decoding H.264 video. It's not merely Safari's access to hardware acceleration since VLC doesn't use hardware acceleration. The problem with Flash is that it doesn't allow companies like Apple, Mozilla, Google, and even Microsoft the opportunity to increase efficiency; it doesn't allow an army of volunteers to improve a code base. It's just stagnated since there was no other way to do animation and vector graphics until recently. The problem with Flash isn't where it is now in comparison to other techniques. The problem with Flash is that the other techniques are open and improving at a rapid pace while Flash isn't. The problem with Flash is that open technologies have lots of smart people working to improve them and make their implementations better while Flash is remaining much the same. Our objection to Flash is that we can see what happened with JavaScript and Ajax (from apps like Google Maps and Gmail to toolkits like jQuery and Prototype) happening with vector images, animation, and video if there's an open standard that all companies and individuals can freely implement and use; with Flash, all we can see is Adobe continuing to feed us the same product we've had for years.

not_an_alien 17y ago
Flash is not "remaining the same". Vast improvement has been done both in terms of features and performance in the past years -- many of them, yes, requested by the community - but I guess anyone who's not working closely with the technology won't be able to see it. There's a lot of future predictions in your post. It's funny that people are changing their assumption that HTML5 us faster to that it will be faster eventually. Let's see how well this pans out. In the meantime, Flash will continue to evolve. Good luck to everybody.
- Detrus 17y ago
  Since the Flash 9 release in 2006 that came with AS3 there were only minor improvements. So the rapid development of the previous years did not last. The past did not predict the future. The new 3D API is maybe a 30% improvement in performance, it's mostly an improvement in swf size. Typed arrays rarely help. PixelBender looks like an early implementation, not a well supported feature. Alchemy isn't officially supported either, but it does some tasks well. These hacky features took years to appear, so Flash isn't evolving any faster than browsers at this point.
natmaster 17y ago
s/Flash/iPhone/g
amadiver 17y ago
Can you imagine if Netscape had managed to stifle free alternative implementations (not simply alternatives; free alternatives). I don't think anyone could refute the idea that the world would be a much better place right now if Microsoft hadn't crushed the market for web browsers and let it lay fallow for six years. (I'm not a Microsoft hater, but no changes to one of the most important pieces of technology in the history of humanity for years? Fuck everything about that!) Macromedia/Adobe's closed nature should be looked upon as a strategic necessity. (I'm aware of the fact that the SWF file specification is open, and that Adobe has made significant contributions to OS JS [I've personally downloaded and browsed their SpiderMonkey engine]. I feel it's likely that they could have possibly held back key implementation details to prevent Microsoft or another party from creating their own version of the Flash player. I don't know if anyone outside Adobe could say for sure how earnest they are about openness in the player.) Openness is a great thing, and crucially important -- I believe our future depends on it. I also believe there's room for some non-threatening technologies that are unencumbered by standards bodies who can innovate quickly. Maybe Flash Player is the guy that quietly amasses a ton of pieces on Kamchatka, convincing everyone they're incapable of taking over the world, and then blam -- blows everyone else away. But I really doubt it. Let's not forget that Safari's implementation of Canvas was met with nerd-rage because it hotdogged around SVG. One party making something fucking awesome and then other parties adopting it is how progress gets made. In relative terms, if we're comparing apples to oranges, Flash pushed innovation far more quickly than the browsers have thus far. It might feel like no time at all that we've gotten <canvas>, <video>, and <audio> all rolled out, but it has ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element ), and they're still only partially implemented. Between the time IE6 rolled out in 2001, and IE7 rolled out in 2006, Flash added the following features: proper video (<video>), unicode support, pre-coded UI components, a vector drawing API (<canvas>), a second version of ActionScript, advanced typography (including custom fonts [@font]), filters, blend modes (damn -- not until HTML6), bitmap caching, sockets, alpha transparency in video, a third version of ActionScript, two giant/comprehensive code libraries, and many, many more features. It's probably not fair to say that Adobe ignored performance concerns. There's been steady improvements to Flash performance, and the shit that sets your processor on fire is usually due to an over-ambitious developer without enough optimization experience. I can guarantee you that you'll see the same kind of performance Hindenburgs with <canvas> if you haven't already ( see article... ). They're a gigantic company with a ton of money, so doubtless they could have done more. You raise an excellent point about VLC decoding H.264 without thrashing.

by mdasen 17y ago

not_an_alien 17y ago

Flash is not "remaining the same". Vast improvement has been done both in terms of features and performance in the past years -- many of them, yes, requested by the community - but I guess anyone who's not working closely with the technology won't be able to see it. There's a lot of future predictions in your post. It's funny that people are changing their assumption that HTML5 us faster to that it will be faster eventually. Let's see how well this pans out. In the meantime, Flash will continue to evolve. Good luck to everybody.

Detrus 17y ago
Since the Flash 9 release in 2006 that came with AS3 there were only minor improvements. So the rapid development of the previous years did not last. The past did not predict the future. The new 3D API is maybe a 30% improvement in performance, it's mostly an improvement in swf size. Typed arrays rarely help. PixelBender looks like an early implementation, not a well supported feature. Alchemy isn't officially supported either, but it does some tasks well. These hacky features took years to appear, so Flash isn't evolving any faster than browsers at this point.

natmaster 17y ago

s/Flash/iPhone/g

amadiver 17y ago

Can you imagine if Netscape had managed to stifle free alternative implementations (not simply alternatives; free alternatives). I don't think anyone could refute the idea that the world would be a much better place right now if Microsoft hadn't crushed the market for web browsers and let it lay fallow for six years. (I'm not a Microsoft hater, but no changes to one of the most important pieces of technology in the history of humanity for years? Fuck everything about that!) Macromedia/Adobe's closed nature should be looked upon as a strategic necessity. (I'm aware of the fact that the SWF file specification is open, and that Adobe has made significant contributions to OS JS [I've personally downloaded and browsed their SpiderMonkey engine]. I feel it's likely that they could have possibly held back key implementation details to prevent Microsoft or another party from creating their own version of the Flash player. I don't know if anyone outside Adobe could say for sure how earnest they are about openness in the player.) Openness is a great thing, and crucially important -- I believe our future depends on it. I also believe there's room for some non-threatening technologies that are unencumbered by standards bodies who can innovate quickly. Maybe Flash Player is the guy that quietly amasses a ton of pieces on Kamchatka, convincing everyone they're incapable of taking over the world, and then blam -- blows everyone else away. But I really doubt it. Let's not forget that Safari's implementation of Canvas was met with nerd-rage because it hotdogged around SVG. One party making something fucking awesome and then other parties adopting it is how progress gets made. In relative terms, if we're comparing apples to oranges, Flash pushed innovation far more quickly than the browsers have thus far. It might feel like no time at all that we've gotten <canvas>, <video>, and <audio> all rolled out, but it has ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element ), and they're still only partially implemented. Between the time IE6 rolled out in 2001, and IE7 rolled out in 2006, Flash added the following features: proper video (<video>), unicode support, pre-coded UI components, a vector drawing API (<canvas>), a second version of ActionScript, advanced typography (including custom fonts [@font]), filters, blend modes (damn -- not until HTML6), bitmap caching, sockets, alpha transparency in video, a third version of ActionScript, two giant/comprehensive code libraries, and many, many more features. It's probably not fair to say that Adobe ignored performance concerns. There's been steady improvements to Flash performance, and the shit that sets your processor on fire is usually due to an over-ambitious developer without enough optimization experience. I can guarantee you that you'll see the same kind of performance Hindenburgs with <canvas> if you haven't already ( see article... ). They're a gigantic company with a ton of money, so doubtless they could have done more. You raise an excellent point about VLC decoding H.264 without thrashing.