3 ms·

what makes this an emulator and not just an alternative open source player?

by cultofmetatron 2y ago

maxbond 2y ago
An emulator seeks to be bug-compatible with a specific language implementation, rather than to implement a language in the abstract. The reference implementation is the spec. But it isn't entirely cut and dry, and I see where your point.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  I'm not sure in the case here there's a difference between emulator and open source player.
  - maxbond 2y ago
    Rather than emulating the behavior of Flash Player, you could write an implementation against the ActionScript language reference. https://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/index.html https://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actions... And/or the documentation of AVM2, including it's instruction set. https://archive.org/details/flash-file-format-specification-collection-hackipedia-org-20201122/ActionScript%20Virtual%20Machine%202%20%28AVM2%29%20Overview%20by%20Adobe%20%282007-05%29/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/flash-file-format-specification-... (see page 35) That's what I mean by implementing a language in the abstract. I don't imagine anyone would want to do that, except out of academic interest. It wouldn't be suitable for archival purposes, and those are the only practical purposes I can imagine. But that's the distinction that comes to my mind.
dusted 2y ago
well, there's not even a proprietary player anymore.. at least on recent linux, you'll be hard pressed to play .swf files without ruffle.
- lcouturi 2y ago
  It is true that the proprietary player was discontinued years ago, but it is still usable, even on Linux. I installed it through the AUR package on Arch Linux, but it can also be installed on any distribution through the Flatpak package. From my experience though Ruffle has much better performance, so I use it whenever possible.

3 ms·

what makes this an emulator and not just an alternative open source player?

by cultofmetatron 2y ago

what makes this an emulator and not just an alternative open source player?

maxbond 2y ago
An emulator seeks to be bug-compatible with a specific language implementation, rather than to implement a language in the abstract. The reference implementation is the spec. But it isn't entirely cut and dry, and I see where your point.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  I'm not sure in the case here there's a difference between emulator and open source player.
  - maxbond 2y ago
    Rather than emulating the behavior of Flash Player, you could write an implementation against the ActionScript language reference. https://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/index.html https://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actions... And/or the documentation of AVM2, including it's instruction set. https://archive.org/details/flash-file-format-specification-collection-hackipedia-org-20201122/ActionScript%20Virtual%20Machine%202%20%28AVM2%29%20Overview%20by%20Adobe%20%282007-05%29/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/flash-file-format-specification-... (see page 35) That's what I mean by implementing a language in the abstract. I don't imagine anyone would want to do that, except out of academic interest. It wouldn't be suitable for archival purposes, and those are the only practical purposes I can imagine. But that's the distinction that comes to my mind.
dusted 2y ago
well, there's not even a proprietary player anymore.. at least on recent linux, you'll be hard pressed to play .swf files without ruffle.
- lcouturi 2y ago
  It is true that the proprietary player was discontinued years ago, but it is still usable, even on Linux. I installed it through the AUR package on Arch Linux, but it can also be installed on any distribution through the Flatpak package. From my experience though Ruffle has much better performance, so I use it whenever possible.