4 ms·

If adobe "got it", Flash would compile into cross-platform HTML5 code. The world doesn't need another inner platform.

by noamsml 15y ago

whatever_dude 15y ago
I'm wondering how would HTML5 video support audio, webcam feeds, and a plethora of other features that Flash has had for years but that are barely on the HTML's radar. Having a time machine is not the same as "getting it".
- ugh 15y ago
  That’s a minority of use cases. Flash can stick around as a bridge technology for a few years to cover those. The majority of stuff that’s today done in Flash can easily be done with plain HTML, CSS and Javascript, often not even the newest variety.
  - montibbalt 15y ago
    Can it be done with something that's not Javascript? Not trolling, I'm genuinely asking.
jjcm 15y ago
Cross compiling would be a horrible idea in my opinion. The end result would be horrific code that ran slowly. The platforms are too different to be ported automatically. There've been attempts in the past, but the cross browser support and performance are usually not that grand. Adobe is however working on a html5 builder called edge - http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/edge/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/edge/ Looks pretty good from the face of things, and to be honest I think this is the right direction for them to take.
beej71 15y ago
Adobe has been working on a variety of HTML5 tools, so we can presume they "get it". It must cost them a fortune to support Flashplayer (which they give away for nothing). I'm sure they'll drop it the moment there's enough HTML5 penetration on par with Flashplayer's capabilities.
- namityadav 15y ago
  I'm sure Adobe is working on HTML5 tools. But, It must cost them a fortune to support Flashplayer (which they give away for nothing) The cost of supporting the free Flashplayer is paid for by the lock-in that this enables. Afterall, Dreamweaver doesn't have the kind of market dominance that Flash Professional has.
  - beej71 15y ago
    Yes, however, the desired "lock-in" is to the tool, which sells, not the Flashplayer. People are used to developing with Flash Professional and have AS3 codebases, etc. If Adobe successfully targets HTML5 instead of Flashplayer, these people can (and in all likelihood will choose to) continue to use FlashWhatever Professional and even their AS3 codebases. The player is merely a medium, though by authoring it, Adobe can advance the state of the art more quickly than the browser makers can agree on anything. This does make Flash Professional a more compelling environment. But let's pretend for a moment that 95% of browsers got feature-coherent on the level of Flash. Why would Adobe care if the player were "all browsers", instead of Flashplayer? Would they care because if they were targeting all browsers, they'd be effectively targeting a level playing field in terms of the base technology? Would it end up like Dreamweaver, which also targets a common base technology? I'm going to argue "not necessarily, and in this case, no". And the reason is that anyone today can target Flashplayer. The playing field is already effectively level on Flash. Tons of software outputs SWFs. There are even Flash Professional wannabes, but they're not as good as GIMP is compared to Photoshop, and we know where that thread leads. Speaking of that, consider Photoshop. It is hugely popular in spite of the fact there is zero infrastructure lock-in. Literally bazillions of programs can view and edit Photoshop-produced files. It's thriving while Dreamweaver, relatively, stagnates. Dreamweaver's lack of dominance, IMO, is likely related to other factors. (I'm not sure why, but I don't know any professional web developers that use it.) Iff Adobe could get Flash-quality and quantity on 95% of browsers using HTML/CSS/JS, I'll still bet you a pint they stop work on the player. Chrome 14 just added audio synthesis, so we're getting there! Adobe's not going to stop working on the Flash Professional-style tools, though, even if it is outputting HTML. People buy Flash Professional for the features it provides both to the designer and for the end result. No one actually cares if there is a plugin in the middle or not.
ars 15y ago
> Flash would compile into cross-platform HTML5 code Why? If I wanted that I would write HTML5 in the first place. What benefit would flash give me? Your definition of "got it" is for adobe to shut flash down.
ryannielsen 15y ago
Wallaby: Convert Adobe Flash FLA files into HTML and reach more devices http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ It's woefully limited right now, but it's obvious Adobe's exploring that avenue.

If adobe "got it", Flash would compile into cross-platform HTML5 code. The world doesn't need another inner platform.

by noamsml 15y ago

If adobe "got it", Flash would compile into cross-platform HTML5 code. The world doesn't need another inner platform.

I'm wondering how would HTML5 video support audio, webcam feeds, and a plethora of other features that Flash has had for years but that are barely on the HTML's radar. Having a time machine is not the same as "getting it".

ugh 15y ago
That’s a minority of use cases. Flash can stick around as a bridge technology for a few years to cover those. The majority of stuff that’s today done in Flash can easily be done with plain HTML, CSS and Javascript, often not even the newest variety.
- montibbalt 15y ago
  Can it be done with something that's not Javascript? Not trolling, I'm genuinely asking.

jjcm 15y ago

Cross compiling would be a horrible idea in my opinion. The end result would be horrific code that ran slowly. The platforms are too different to be ported automatically. There've been attempts in the past, but the cross browser support and performance are usually not that grand. Adobe is however working on a html5 builder called edge - http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/edge/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/edge/ Looks pretty good from the face of things, and to be honest I think this is the right direction for them to take.

beej71 15y ago

Adobe has been working on a variety of HTML5 tools, so we can presume they "get it". It must cost them a fortune to support Flashplayer (which they give away for nothing). I'm sure they'll drop it the moment there's enough HTML5 penetration on par with Flashplayer's capabilities.

namityadav 15y ago
I'm sure Adobe is working on HTML5 tools. But, It must cost them a fortune to support Flashplayer (which they give away for nothing) The cost of supporting the free Flashplayer is paid for by the lock-in that this enables. Afterall, Dreamweaver doesn't have the kind of market dominance that Flash Professional has.
- beej71 15y ago
  Yes, however, the desired "lock-in" is to the tool, which sells, not the Flashplayer. People are used to developing with Flash Professional and have AS3 codebases, etc. If Adobe successfully targets HTML5 instead of Flashplayer, these people can (and in all likelihood will choose to) continue to use FlashWhatever Professional and even their AS3 codebases. The player is merely a medium, though by authoring it, Adobe can advance the state of the art more quickly than the browser makers can agree on anything. This does make Flash Professional a more compelling environment. But let's pretend for a moment that 95% of browsers got feature-coherent on the level of Flash. Why would Adobe care if the player were "all browsers", instead of Flashplayer? Would they care because if they were targeting all browsers, they'd be effectively targeting a level playing field in terms of the base technology? Would it end up like Dreamweaver, which also targets a common base technology? I'm going to argue "not necessarily, and in this case, no". And the reason is that anyone today can target Flashplayer. The playing field is already effectively level on Flash. Tons of software outputs SWFs. There are even Flash Professional wannabes, but they're not as good as GIMP is compared to Photoshop, and we know where that thread leads. Speaking of that, consider Photoshop. It is hugely popular in spite of the fact there is zero infrastructure lock-in. Literally bazillions of programs can view and edit Photoshop-produced files. It's thriving while Dreamweaver, relatively, stagnates. Dreamweaver's lack of dominance, IMO, is likely related to other factors. (I'm not sure why, but I don't know any professional web developers that use it.) Iff Adobe could get Flash-quality and quantity on 95% of browsers using HTML/CSS/JS, I'll still bet you a pint they stop work on the player. Chrome 14 just added audio synthesis, so we're getting there! Adobe's not going to stop working on the Flash Professional-style tools, though, even if it is outputting HTML. People buy Flash Professional for the features it provides both to the designer and for the end result. No one actually cares if there is a plugin in the middle or not.

ars 15y ago

> Flash would compile into cross-platform HTML5 code Why? If I wanted that I would write HTML5 in the first place. What benefit would flash give me? Your definition of "got it" is for adobe to shut flash down.

ryannielsen 15y ago

Wallaby: Convert Adobe Flash FLA files into HTML and reach more devices http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ It's woefully limited right now, but it's obvious Adobe's exploring that avenue.