4 ms·
I agree with the "not nearly as easy" part as long as you are limited to the usual HTML/CSS/JS stack. I think WebAssembly has a lot of promise here, as you can
by rob74 4y ago
I agree with the "not nearly as easy" part as long as you are limited to the usual HTML/CSS/JS stack. I think WebAssembly has a lot of promise here, as you can theoretically do anything you want in any language of your choice and have it run in the browser. Of course, this is also a threat to the "open web" where you are free to use your browser's DevTools to dissect the internals of any site.
- tsukikage 4y agoThe tooling is the main issue here, and that's even worse for webassembly than the usual HTML/CSS/JS stack.
- rendall 4y agoThis is the thing. ActionScript had a phenomenal API for each media asset.
- graderjs 4y agoI got some Flash applications[0] working in the Pro version of my remote, isolated iframe-embeddable multiplayer web browser[1] using Ruffle[2]. I use CRDP (chrome remote debugging protocol)[3] to run Ruffle on pages that need it (sort of like a Chrome extension content script). Ruffle itself uses wasm and is quite fast. It's cool seeing the audio and video work and playing those old games. - [0]: https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/wiki/Test-SWFs https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/wiki/Test-SWFs [1]: https://github.com/crisdosyago/BrowserBox#bb-pro-vs-regular--comparison-table https://github.com/crisdosyago/BrowserBox#bb-pro-vs-regular-... [2]: https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle [3]: https://chromedevtools.github.io/devtools-protocol/tot/ https://chromedevtools.github.io/devtools-protocol/tot/