4 ms·

I'm all for Flash dying in time, don't get me wrong but let me summarize your answer here: "Partly works, recent hiccups, runs on good hardware only, in progre

• JoshTriplett 15y ago
  I said flash has a smaller installed base than web browsers, not the other way around. :) Also, I said WebGL runs as fast as the user's system can support. I intended my post to summarize the ongoing work on the replacements for the various things people cared about in Flash, specifically to make it clear that HTML does have all the same use cases in mind. As each new technology becomes available, more bits can migrate off of Flash. Flash needs to start dying now, so everybody on the sinking ship can start figuring out what they need and solidifying the replacements. It'll have a lingering death scene, so the sooner it starts, the sooner it finishes. If the replacements don't work, they need fixing, without people thinking "oh, I'll just use Flash instead". People need to think "no, it needs to work now, I need to migrate off of Flash as soon as possible". Ideally, in the next couple of years, we'll get Flash to the point that Java has reached now: an oddity that the occasional legacy site uses.