The "game" is bad and and this article is bad. A lot of the points the author is making in favor of HTML5 are simply not true. No Compiling - Languages like f

The "game" is bad and and this article is bad. A lot of the points the author is making in favor of HTML5 are simply not true. No Compiling - Languages like flash can build while you and work and compile in under 5 seconds. This is also not a compelling reason to choose a platform, and no intelligent person has ever chosen a platform based on how fast it compiles. Easy Testing - HTML5 is no easier to test than anything else. Perhaps having to connect a device to test would be an exception. Simply not true. It's not a plugin - This is irrelevant. If we're talking about browsers, flash has more penetration than HTML5 does right now. So which is worse -- a plugin that 99% of PC users already have, or an executable installer that needs to be run in order to update or change to a browser that supports canvas? You can rapidly prototype with many languages. I am not arguing against HTML5 at all. Infact, I believe it is probably the future of casual web games. I am only arguing against this poorly written article. The author actually claims that HTML5 is better because of the "hype" around it. Give me a break. The only final thing I will say is that javascript is a shitty language to write anything like a big game in. If you know anything about CS fundamentals, then you can't refute this fact.