3 ms·
Because it was buggy, known for security holes and the single biggest source of application crashes in all software in the late 90's through early 00's.
by tracker1 1y ago
Because it was buggy, known for security holes and the single biggest source of application crashes in all software in the late 90's through early 00's.
- moralestapia 1y ago[flagged]
- tracker1 1y agoDrank the kool-aid?!? I worked in the eLearning space, I was a prominent user and developer for Flash/Flex content... there was some interesting tooling for sure, I also completely disabled it on my home computers as a result of working with it. I had a lot of hopes after the Adobe buyout that Flash would morph into something based around ActionScript (ES4) and SVG. That didn't happen. MS's Silverlight/XAML was close, but I wasn't going to even consider it without several cross-platform version releases.
- moralestapia 1y ago>I was a prominent user and developer for Flash/Flex content I was as well. It wasn't as bad as people describe it. It was an amazing platform, HTML5 just recently caught up. In retrospective, Adobe should have open sourced it. >MS's Silverlight/XAML was close Hahahahahha, yeah sure! That tells me everything I need to know.
- tracker1 1y agoI agree it should have been open-sourced (at least the player portion)... As for Silverlight, I mean the technology itself was closer to where I wanted to see Flash go. I'm not sure why you're laughing at that. edit: as for not being as bad as people describe it... you could literally read any file on the filesystem... that's a pretty bad "sandbox" ... It was fixed later, but there were different holes along the way, multiple times.
- jjtheblunt 1y agoyou missed the "it drained battery like there was no tomorrow" argument.
- tracker1 1y agoI never really used it detached from a wall... mostly from work projects.