11 ms·

You have to remember the background for this era. Shockwave (not yet even Adobe), Shockwave Flash was the overwhelming interactive media on the internet. Kids i

You have to remember the background for this era. Shockwave (not yet even Adobe), Shockwave Flash was the overwhelming interactive media on the internet. Kids in middle school and high school watched episodes of .flv videos of South park, we played "stick figure skiing" or "stick figure fighting" games, there were stick figure sledding games, all sorts of "multimedia" apps existed inside the "flash" container/spec. Some of them (multiplayer) also had network support of some sort, if only for supporting ads. A big part of flash was that it was not bitmap, it was... scalable vectors, which allowed it to shrink traditionally "large" (500kb+, easily 10 minutes on dialup) spritemap heavy games, down into 45-100kb (less than 7 minute download) packages that could be played on nearly any desktop SVG had the same base layer functionality but network support would have been a big step towards making an open standard version of Flash. The iPhone was famously one of the last devices to drop support for Flash (due to both wild and regular security holes), and when they did, Flash (the predominant consumer web technology of the early-mid 2000s) finally died. It was a big deal. Had SVG gotten flash-like capability, it could have been a real game changer (although with giant security holes). Security back then was "somebody elses' problem" so while raw sockets seems wholly irresponsible by modern standards, back then it was the norm, partly because less than 10 million people worldwide really had any kind of risk exposure, plus the fact that the internet was still mostly decentralized, AOL was still considered a major force back then. Facebook and others with billions of users didn't exist yet.

1970-01-01 4y ago
This was the time when things were truly awesome in terms of content. Flash, Shockwave, SVG, and Java Applets meant there were no longer restrictions to animation on websites. Security just wasn't a big problem. It was a golden age.
Gigachad 4y ago
Good summary, only thing I'd add is that the iPhone didn't drop support for flash, they never had it to begin with and made it clear they never would. Android vendors at the time used to use flash support as selling point until they too dropped it. Being the first to call the death on something seems to be an ongoing trend with Apple.
- nntwozz 4y ago
  Flashback to Steve Jobs' famous "Thoughts on Flash" https://newslang.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Thoughts-on-Flash.pdf https://newslang.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Thoughts-on-F... It was not well received at the time. Oh how things have changed.
  - gumby 4y ago
    Well it wasn't received well by Adobe, who had by then bought Macromedia, nor by people who had tied their wagon to Flash. But Flash was pretty horrible even on most laptops and even many desktops of the day, and was a security nightmare. The complainers were loud, but I think the majority of people who cared (99% of humanity didn't even notice, of course) were muttering "amen brother!"
    - exsf0859 4y ago
      Besides animation and games, Flash was also used for streaming video and video conferencing. iPhone customers were so desirable that, over time, the video streaming sites had to support Apple's video streaming format. They would have also supported Apple's video conferencing app, but I think Apple was unable to open-source the protocols for the video conferencing format, due to patent issues.
      - duskwuff 4y ago
        > had to support Apple's video streaming format It's a little weird to call an open standard (like H264) "Apple's format".
        Evidlo 4y ago
        H264 isn't open though, depending on your definition of open
        duskwuff 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
STRML 4y ago
Your comment is mostly on point, but the download speeds are way off. By the time Flash was really getting big, everyone was on 56k, (rarely) ISDN, or ~1mbps broadband of one type or another. But even with 56k, you're getting 5kBps. So a 45-100kB download was 20sec at most, and 500kB was about 2 minutes. That said vector graphics and extreme sound compression was just how shit got done. In those days gaming and entertainment online was all about CD deployment, extreme delta patching, low bit rate audio (Teamspeak et al) and vector graphics when possible. I miss those days. On top of it not yet being spoiled by billion dollar businesses, the extreme constraints meant that creative minds could excel far above and beyond corporate types. And that's why the internet had the reputation it did. The ones who were making waves were individuals and small development houses that were founder-driven. It's nothing like today.
- dspillett 4y ago
  > By the time Flash was really getting big, everyone was on 56k, (rarely) ISDN, or ~1mbps broadband of one type or another. From my memory¹ the big flash days in terms of my interaction with stuff created with it, started as I was upgrading from 36k6 to 56k at home (though I had faster access at University sites) and ended around the time I bumped up from 512kbit to 2mbit downstream. *> But even with 56k, you're getting 5kBps. Usually less. It was rare to connect faster than 45k on most lines, 42k on some. Of course once upgraded (first from ~56k modem to 512kbit ADSL), and before upgrading at home but using faster connections at uni/work, there were other issues: often the sites we were getting the flash content from would not deliver nearly as fast as the new line could receive²³ so a ½Mbyte+ flash app could still take a noticeable time to arrive. ---- [1] UK here, landline internet tech rollout progress varied a lot between territories [2] again, UK: some other-end bandwidth issues (and latency issues) might have been experienced differently where you are due to differences in [inter]national peering arrangements [3] or if they did, there was enough latency to mask a chunk of the bandwidth benefit
  - hadlock 4y ago
    I remember getting 3.5-4.5kBps. Usually on the lower end of that scale. 5 was an exceptionally lucky day.
leonidasv 4y ago
Author here. I saw people saying basically the same in Twitter and almost mentioned that SVG with networking was going be positioned as a Flash competitor (and sure it makes sense!), but found no reliable source on this. Do you have any source/link/PDF from that time mentioning this goal for SVG? I would happily update the article if you could link it here. Thanks!
- hadlock 4y ago
  It just seems like the logical outcome. This is like suggesting asking for adding wireless transmitters and receivers on car keys and cars, then asking for concrete documentation that they are intended to be used for locking and unlocking your car. If there were other applications for this technology, I'd be curious to hear about it.
- Marazan 4y ago
  Everything was being positioned as a Flash killer. It was so all pervasive you didn't have to explicitly say it. HTML5 was flash killer. The way the Javascript standard developed was a Flash killer. Everything was aiming to kill Flash and take down Adobe.
- shellac 4y ago
  I wasn't involved in SVG, but knew quite a few of the people involved around the working group. Seeing socket support mentioned certainly raised a smile: one of the team was quite keen on writing a pure-svg IRC client, I think. It wasn't an explicit goal of SVG 1.2 to replace Flash. You should be able to dig out the working group charter to check that. However the way these groups worked was that there were various communities ('stakeholders' if you must) who contributed thoughts and ideas. At least one of the companies implementing SVG certainly did want a Flash competitor, and so was keen on sockets. I think they all knew it wouldn't fly, but they get excited. You see the same with Chrome and stuff like USB and Bluetooth access.
justinclift 4y ago
Nicely, the Ruffle project (flash player written in Rust), seems like it has legs and plays a substantial amount of Flash content: https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle They released their first "progress report" a few weeks ago: https://ruffle.rs/blog/2023/03/12/progress-report.html https://ruffle.rs/blog/2023/03/12/progress-report.html Seems like good news. :)
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  Not the first attempted Flash reimplementation[1,2,3]. The GNU one didn’t work all that well back in the day as far as I remember, but then Flash was a moving target at the time. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ https://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ [2]: http://lightspark.github.io/ http://lightspark.github.io/ [3]: https://github.com/mozilla/shumway https://github.com/mozilla/shumway
  - justinclift 4y ago
    Thanks. I'm aware of some of the earlier ones, as I was (ages ago) involved in a swf generation project called libming. Far before Adobe started open sourcing its swf generation code. So, kept an eye on some of the other attempted players, but they didn't really seem to gain enough traction/adoption to really go places. That's why I think this Ruffle thing has legs (eg "is going places"), as it's showing the right signs of actually getting adoption and traction. :)
mmaunder 4y ago
Came here to say this. It was also coming out of a Java applet world which was along the same lines.
thrdbndndn 4y ago
> The iPhone was famously one of the last devices to drop support for Flash Isn't it the opposite? iOS never supported Flash, which helped kill it once iOS gained popularity.
- Klonoar 4y ago
  It is exactly the opposite, yes.
goto11 4y ago
Another important piece of context: HTML was basically frozen at the time, since this was when Internet Explorer had absolute domination of the browser space and Microsoft had decided not the develop it further. But innovation could still happen in Flash which Microsoft did not control, but what still popular enough that IE has to support the plug-in. So W3C was trying to move the web forward through specs which were independent of HTML. SVG 1.2 was not just for logos, it was intended to be viable as a stand-alone application format (which required network communication). Another attempt was XHTML 2 which was not backwards compatible with HTML, but considered a fresh start. Firefox changed that by creating competition in the browser space, which made innovation in HTML possible again.
- tannhaeuser 4y ago
  Don't know if I'd characterize the situation like that. HTML has changed very, very little over time: there were the new HTML 5 semantic sectioning elements article, main, header, footer, section, and very few additional elements with ever-changing semantics such as summary/details, dialog and menu/menuitem (oddly, a Firefox contribution that took a long time to find its way into other browsers, unlike Chrome's). Note the so-called "HTML5 outlining algorithm" for inferring sections and interpreting heading levels was only removed last year from the spec. In contrast, many more additional elements came in via the foreign vocabularies that were specified using XML ie SVG and MathML. What utterly changed was CSS and JS, though; you could say CSS was expanded to this absurd extend because HTML was bound to stay the same during W3C and then WHATWG's organizational lock on HTML.
  - goto11 4y ago
    This is true. It was really the whole browser HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript platform which was considered locked and frozen by IE. Flash supported JavaScript but through its own independent engine, which meant it could evolve independently of IE. Something similar was envisioned for SVG, which is why it needed its own networking API independent of what the browser provided. Of course things turned out differently, and SVG became integrated in the HTML rendering engine and browser environment.
grishka 4y ago
Flash did have raw TCP sockets support. It did have some security built in though. When you opened a socket, the flash player itself would first connect to the address and port you specified, send the string `<policy-file-request/>` and expect the server to respond with the contents of the crossdomain.xml file (the same kind used for HTTP requests from flash) allowing the app to connect. It would then close the connection, and, if it's satisfied with the cross-domain policy, reconnect again and hand this socket over to the app.
om2 4y ago
The iPhone was one of the _first_ devices to drop support for Flash, not one of the last (well, “dropped” in the sense that it literally never had Flash). Arguably the first mainstream device to have full powered browsing and no Flash, since the introduction of Flash. It was only because of this that desktop browsers were eventually able to drop Flash a decade later.
ivanhoe 4y ago
Just a note for a younger generations that Flash (re-branded by Macromedia as Shockwave Flash) and Macromedia Shockwave were actually two different products - Shockwave being a more advanced multimedia platform inspired by Flash, which was primarily the svg animation tool. Still, Flash was a far more popular format and it was what the most of people used everyday as it was available by default as a plugin on every new browser.
- LinAGKar 4y ago
  The distinction I remember from the time is that Shockwave player allowed 3D games (a use case that was later also filled by Unity Web Player) while Flash Player was just for 2D stuff. Also, Shockwave and Unity weren't available on Linux, unlike Flash.
- nogridbag 4y ago
  And the user experience was incredibly different. For me personally, when I went to a website that used Shockwave I would reach for the back button because it rarely worked on my machine, similar to RealMedia player and Java applets. Regarding Java applets, I was tasked with fixing one Windows machine in a university computer lab that simply would not load a Java applet. All the machines in the lab were cloned from the same image and I was the resident Java expert. For the life of me I could not get that machine to load the Java applet - I spent an entire day on it. Flash always seemed to work and load fast which likely had some role in it getting mass adoption.
johannes1234321 4y ago
An important thing to Flash's success was the development tool by Macromedia. Designing interactive animations (even games) without any programming knowledge was really easy. I haven't seen anything as intuitive since.
- coldpie 4y ago
  > I haven't seen anything as intuitive since. A handful of folks in yesterday's Scratch thread were saying it could be a modern version of what Flash was. I haven't used it myself. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35373052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35373052
  - johannes1234321 4y ago
    Need to check that out. My impression was that it wasn't aimed at standalone use. Thanks for the pointer. For non-interactive things I use synfig https://www.synfig.org/ https://www.synfig.org/ after learning some of the UI quirks it is okay for pure animation work without interaction.
Waterluvian 4y ago
For me Flash was fully in the broadband era. We watched and played (and I even made some for class credit) at high school and at home. Whenever they took more than 10 seconds to load you knew you were in for a treat. But 7-10 mins? I don’t recall it being that order of magnitude.
morkalork 4y ago
Playing games like slime volleyball in grade 9 got me and probably thousands of other kids interested in programming.
yafbum 4y ago
It did not die for real until much later. As one data point, YouTube was still using flash as the default player on some old browsers and embedded players in 2015 [1]; it dropped support only in 2017 [2]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-flash-for-html5-video-default https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-fla... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6puoc2/did_youtube_just_stop_supporting_flash_all_of_a/ https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6puoc2/did_youtube...
billfruit 4y ago
Is there any modern stack out there for making games with vector graphics?

1970-01-01 4y ago

This was the time when things were truly awesome in terms of content. Flash, Shockwave, SVG, and Java Applets meant there were no longer restrictions to animation on websites. Security just wasn't a big problem. It was a golden age.

Gigachad 4y ago

Good summary, only thing I'd add is that the iPhone didn't drop support for flash, they never had it to begin with and made it clear they never would. Android vendors at the time used to use flash support as selling point until they too dropped it. Being the first to call the death on something seems to be an ongoing trend with Apple.

nntwozz 4y ago
Flashback to Steve Jobs' famous "Thoughts on Flash" https://newslang.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Thoughts-on-Flash.pdf https://newslang.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Thoughts-on-F... It was not well received at the time. Oh how things have changed.
- gumby 4y ago
  Well it wasn't received well by Adobe, who had by then bought Macromedia, nor by people who had tied their wagon to Flash. But Flash was pretty horrible even on most laptops and even many desktops of the day, and was a security nightmare. The complainers were loud, but I think the majority of people who cared (99% of humanity didn't even notice, of course) were muttering "amen brother!"
  - exsf0859 4y ago
    Besides animation and games, Flash was also used for streaming video and video conferencing. iPhone customers were so desirable that, over time, the video streaming sites had to support Apple's video streaming format. They would have also supported Apple's video conferencing app, but I think Apple was unable to open-source the protocols for the video conferencing format, due to patent issues.
    - duskwuff 4y ago
      > had to support Apple's video streaming format It's a little weird to call an open standard (like H264) "Apple's format".
      - Evidlo 4y ago
        H264 isn't open though, depending on your definition of open
        duskwuff 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

STRML 4y ago

Your comment is mostly on point, but the download speeds are way off. By the time Flash was really getting big, everyone was on 56k, (rarely) ISDN, or ~1mbps broadband of one type or another. But even with 56k, you're getting 5kBps. So a 45-100kB download was 20sec at most, and 500kB was about 2 minutes. That said vector graphics and extreme sound compression was just how shit got done. In those days gaming and entertainment online was all about CD deployment, extreme delta patching, low bit rate audio (Teamspeak et al) and vector graphics when possible. I miss those days. On top of it not yet being spoiled by billion dollar businesses, the extreme constraints meant that creative minds could excel far above and beyond corporate types. And that's why the internet had the reputation it did. The ones who were making waves were individuals and small development houses that were founder-driven. It's nothing like today.

dspillett 4y ago
> By the time Flash was really getting big, everyone was on 56k, (rarely) ISDN, or ~1mbps broadband of one type or another. From my memory¹ the big flash days in terms of my interaction with stuff created with it, started as I was upgrading from 36k6 to 56k at home (though I had faster access at University sites) and ended around the time I bumped up from 512kbit to 2mbit downstream. *> But even with 56k, you're getting 5kBps. Usually less. It was rare to connect faster than 45k on most lines, 42k on some. Of course once upgraded (first from ~56k modem to 512kbit ADSL), and before upgrading at home but using faster connections at uni/work, there were other issues: often the sites we were getting the flash content from would not deliver nearly as fast as the new line could receive²³ so a ½Mbyte+ flash app could still take a noticeable time to arrive. ---- [1] UK here, landline internet tech rollout progress varied a lot between territories [2] again, UK: some other-end bandwidth issues (and latency issues) might have been experienced differently where you are due to differences in [inter]national peering arrangements [3] or if they did, there was enough latency to mask a chunk of the bandwidth benefit
- hadlock 4y ago
  I remember getting 3.5-4.5kBps. Usually on the lower end of that scale. 5 was an exceptionally lucky day.

leonidasv 4y ago

Author here. I saw people saying basically the same in Twitter and almost mentioned that SVG with networking was going be positioned as a Flash competitor (and sure it makes sense!), but found no reliable source on this. Do you have any source/link/PDF from that time mentioning this goal for SVG? I would happily update the article if you could link it here. Thanks!

hadlock 4y ago
It just seems like the logical outcome. This is like suggesting asking for adding wireless transmitters and receivers on car keys and cars, then asking for concrete documentation that they are intended to be used for locking and unlocking your car. If there were other applications for this technology, I'd be curious to hear about it.
Marazan 4y ago
Everything was being positioned as a Flash killer. It was so all pervasive you didn't have to explicitly say it. HTML5 was flash killer. The way the Javascript standard developed was a Flash killer. Everything was aiming to kill Flash and take down Adobe.
shellac 4y ago
I wasn't involved in SVG, but knew quite a few of the people involved around the working group. Seeing socket support mentioned certainly raised a smile: one of the team was quite keen on writing a pure-svg IRC client, I think. It wasn't an explicit goal of SVG 1.2 to replace Flash. You should be able to dig out the working group charter to check that. However the way these groups worked was that there were various communities ('stakeholders' if you must) who contributed thoughts and ideas. At least one of the companies implementing SVG certainly did want a Flash competitor, and so was keen on sockets. I think they all knew it wouldn't fly, but they get excited. You see the same with Chrome and stuff like USB and Bluetooth access.

justinclift 4y ago

Nicely, the Ruffle project (flash player written in Rust), seems like it has legs and plays a substantial amount of Flash content: https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle They released their first "progress report" a few weeks ago: https://ruffle.rs/blog/2023/03/12/progress-report.html https://ruffle.rs/blog/2023/03/12/progress-report.html Seems like good news. :)

mananaysiempre 4y ago
Not the first attempted Flash reimplementation[1,2,3]. The GNU one didn’t work all that well back in the day as far as I remember, but then Flash was a moving target at the time. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ https://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ [2]: http://lightspark.github.io/ http://lightspark.github.io/ [3]: https://github.com/mozilla/shumway https://github.com/mozilla/shumway
- justinclift 4y ago
  Thanks. I'm aware of some of the earlier ones, as I was (ages ago) involved in a swf generation project called libming. Far before Adobe started open sourcing its swf generation code. So, kept an eye on some of the other attempted players, but they didn't really seem to gain enough traction/adoption to really go places. That's why I think this Ruffle thing has legs (eg "is going places"), as it's showing the right signs of actually getting adoption and traction. :)

mmaunder 4y ago

Came here to say this. It was also coming out of a Java applet world which was along the same lines.

thrdbndndn 4y ago

> The iPhone was famously one of the last devices to drop support for Flash Isn't it the opposite? iOS never supported Flash, which helped kill it once iOS gained popularity.

Klonoar 4y ago
It is exactly the opposite, yes.

goto11 4y ago

Another important piece of context: HTML was basically frozen at the time, since this was when Internet Explorer had absolute domination of the browser space and Microsoft had decided not the develop it further. But innovation could still happen in Flash which Microsoft did not control, but what still popular enough that IE has to support the plug-in. So W3C was trying to move the web forward through specs which were independent of HTML. SVG 1.2 was not just for logos, it was intended to be viable as a stand-alone application format (which required network communication). Another attempt was XHTML 2 which was not backwards compatible with HTML, but considered a fresh start. Firefox changed that by creating competition in the browser space, which made innovation in HTML possible again.

tannhaeuser 4y ago
Don't know if I'd characterize the situation like that. HTML has changed very, very little over time: there were the new HTML 5 semantic sectioning elements article, main, header, footer, section, and very few additional elements with ever-changing semantics such as summary/details, dialog and menu/menuitem (oddly, a Firefox contribution that took a long time to find its way into other browsers, unlike Chrome's). Note the so-called "HTML5 outlining algorithm" for inferring sections and interpreting heading levels was only removed last year from the spec. In contrast, many more additional elements came in via the foreign vocabularies that were specified using XML ie SVG and MathML. What utterly changed was CSS and JS, though; you could say CSS was expanded to this absurd extend because HTML was bound to stay the same during W3C and then WHATWG's organizational lock on HTML.
- goto11 4y ago
  This is true. It was really the whole browser HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript platform which was considered locked and frozen by IE. Flash supported JavaScript but through its own independent engine, which meant it could evolve independently of IE. Something similar was envisioned for SVG, which is why it needed its own networking API independent of what the browser provided. Of course things turned out differently, and SVG became integrated in the HTML rendering engine and browser environment.

grishka 4y ago

Flash did have raw TCP sockets support. It did have some security built in though. When you opened a socket, the flash player itself would first connect to the address and port you specified, send the string `<policy-file-request/>` and expect the server to respond with the contents of the crossdomain.xml file (the same kind used for HTTP requests from flash) allowing the app to connect. It would then close the connection, and, if it's satisfied with the cross-domain policy, reconnect again and hand this socket over to the app.

om2 4y ago

The iPhone was one of the _first_ devices to drop support for Flash, not one of the last (well, “dropped” in the sense that it literally never had Flash). Arguably the first mainstream device to have full powered browsing and no Flash, since the introduction of Flash. It was only because of this that desktop browsers were eventually able to drop Flash a decade later.

ivanhoe 4y ago

Just a note for a younger generations that Flash (re-branded by Macromedia as Shockwave Flash) and Macromedia Shockwave were actually two different products - Shockwave being a more advanced multimedia platform inspired by Flash, which was primarily the svg animation tool. Still, Flash was a far more popular format and it was what the most of people used everyday as it was available by default as a plugin on every new browser.

LinAGKar 4y ago
The distinction I remember from the time is that Shockwave player allowed 3D games (a use case that was later also filled by Unity Web Player) while Flash Player was just for 2D stuff. Also, Shockwave and Unity weren't available on Linux, unlike Flash.
nogridbag 4y ago
And the user experience was incredibly different. For me personally, when I went to a website that used Shockwave I would reach for the back button because it rarely worked on my machine, similar to RealMedia player and Java applets. Regarding Java applets, I was tasked with fixing one Windows machine in a university computer lab that simply would not load a Java applet. All the machines in the lab were cloned from the same image and I was the resident Java expert. For the life of me I could not get that machine to load the Java applet - I spent an entire day on it. Flash always seemed to work and load fast which likely had some role in it getting mass adoption.

johannes1234321 4y ago

An important thing to Flash's success was the development tool by Macromedia. Designing interactive animations (even games) without any programming knowledge was really easy. I haven't seen anything as intuitive since.

coldpie 4y ago
> I haven't seen anything as intuitive since. A handful of folks in yesterday's Scratch thread were saying it could be a modern version of what Flash was. I haven't used it myself. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35373052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35373052
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  Need to check that out. My impression was that it wasn't aimed at standalone use. Thanks for the pointer. For non-interactive things I use synfig https://www.synfig.org/ https://www.synfig.org/ after learning some of the UI quirks it is okay for pure animation work without interaction.

Waterluvian 4y ago

For me Flash was fully in the broadband era. We watched and played (and I even made some for class credit) at high school and at home. Whenever they took more than 10 seconds to load you knew you were in for a treat. But 7-10 mins? I don’t recall it being that order of magnitude.

morkalork 4y ago

Playing games like slime volleyball in grade 9 got me and probably thousands of other kids interested in programming.

yafbum 4y ago

It did not die for real until much later. As one data point, YouTube was still using flash as the default player on some old browsers and embedded players in 2015 [1]; it dropped support only in 2017 [2]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-flash-for-html5-video-default https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-fla... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6puoc2/did_youtube_just_stop_supporting_flash_all_of_a/ https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/6puoc2/did_youtube...

billfruit 4y ago

Is there any modern stack out there for making games with vector graphics?