4 ms·

someone can (in theory) develop a mobile friendly, efficient (and open source) runtime I don't think the format is documented to that level. And even if it is,

someone can (in theory) develop a mobile friendly, efficient (and open source) runtime I don't think the format is documented to that level. And even if it is, it is very complex and hard to get right for other implementations (and it is a moving target controlled by one player, a bit like MS office formats). And why bother? If you have the choice, why not go with HTML5 which already has some good and very fast free implementations available? Or as you're implementing your own environment anyway, go completely native?

arocks 14y ago
Yes the SWF format has not been fully documented [1] by Adobe to make it easy to develop an implementation. But so was the case with Office documents, but several open source projects can now successfully read and write them. EDIT: It seems that the Flash Player EULA is a major roadblock. Once installed, you cannot perform any reverse engineering on it [2]. [1]: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash#Adobe_Flash_Player_End-User_License_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash#Adobe_Flash_Player_End-Us...
- calinet6 14y ago
  Even if it were to be documented, I imagine it would read something like: "This API works exactly like this. Except when the user disables local storage. Oh wait, also not when the Flash version is 11.0.635.24.b. Well, also it's different if you don't have a security-inst-config.xml installed in the home directory of the user under the path .adobe/flash/securityPolicy. OH! Also it works completely differently if you're using HTTPS. And it won't work at all if you're trying to access any server without a security policy defined on the DNS TXT record third from the top. Also there are some slight issues between 3 and 5 PM GMT on Tuesdays, but a workaround can be found on the Macromedia support forums."
JackdawX 14y ago
> And why bother? If you have the choice, why not go with HTML5 which already has some good and very fast free implementations available? Well, I think this demo kind of proves why not: it doesn't work the same way on everyones browser. We've been talking for years now about html5 games obsoleting flash, but it doesn't seem to be coming together does it? My opinion on why not? We've got some serious problems with the spec and the people producing the spec. Even with the infinite resources of google, the chrome browser is not actually 100% compliant! Is that even fixable at this late stage of the game? > Or as you're implementing your own environment anyway, go completely native? That doesn't really help you distribute your games safely over the web to multiple people. Also, cross platform development is actually quite time consuming and hard, and the performance benefeits vs a VM are not really worth it for the average 2D flash-type game.
- wladimir 14y ago
  > Well, I think this demo kind of proves why not: it doesn't work the same way on everyones browser. Still, you are comparing this to flash, which has only one complete implementation at all which is only available on a subset of platforms and not open source. This number of platforms is decreasing, not increasing (ie, Android dropped). > That doesn't really help you distribute your games safely over the web to multiple people. Agreed, no one solved the problem of cross-platform application development (both desktop and mobile) yet. And flash doesn't succeed much, if any, better than HTML5 in this regard. But looking forward HTML5 looks more promising too me.
  - rschmitty 14y ago
    > Still, you are comparing this to flash, which has only one complete implementation at all which is only available on a subset of platforms Huh? A flash swf or flash compiled app is available on _all_ platforms. We aren't talking Flash on the iPhone, this is Flash _compiled_ to native for the iPhone. Haxe NME and Unity3D are similar in that they let you write once and deploy to many. They also in fact let you "deploy to flash". They do this because if you know your audience, you know you need to still support IE8 and while you get IE8 you also get IE7/6. Believe it or not businesses are locked into these horrible browsers. Going 100% HTML5 is cool and trendy but why would you elect to cut off a subset of your users (who you are trying to make $ off of) Haxe and Adobe (not sure about Unity) are also allowing you to export to HTML5. This would be interesting if they compared performance with that. We are all looking forward to HTML5 taking over, but we are far from that place right now.
    - wladimir 14y ago
      > Haxe NME and Unity3D are similar in that they let you write once and deploy to many. They also in fact let you "deploy to flash". I think you're distorting my argument a bit -- I wouldn't invest in developing new flash app or game, but if you can get flash support for free through "compile to flash" I don't see any reason for not supporting it as extra option.
    - kranner 14y ago

arocks 14y ago

Yes the SWF format has not been fully documented [1] by Adobe to make it easy to develop an implementation. But so was the case with Office documents, but several open source projects can now successfully read and write them. EDIT: It seems that the Flash Player EULA is a major roadblock. Once installed, you cannot perform any reverse engineering on it [2]. [1]: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash#Adobe_Flash_Player_End-User_License_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash#Adobe_Flash_Player_End-Us...

calinet6 14y ago
Even if it were to be documented, I imagine it would read something like: "This API works exactly like this. Except when the user disables local storage. Oh wait, also not when the Flash version is 11.0.635.24.b. Well, also it's different if you don't have a security-inst-config.xml installed in the home directory of the user under the path .adobe/flash/securityPolicy. OH! Also it works completely differently if you're using HTTPS. And it won't work at all if you're trying to access any server without a security policy defined on the DNS TXT record third from the top. Also there are some slight issues between 3 and 5 PM GMT on Tuesdays, but a workaround can be found on the Macromedia support forums."

JackdawX 14y ago

> And why bother? If you have the choice, why not go with HTML5 which already has some good and very fast free implementations available? Well, I think this demo kind of proves why not: it doesn't work the same way on everyones browser. We've been talking for years now about html5 games obsoleting flash, but it doesn't seem to be coming together does it? My opinion on why not? We've got some serious problems with the spec and the people producing the spec. Even with the infinite resources of google, the chrome browser is not actually 100% compliant! Is that even fixable at this late stage of the game? > Or as you're implementing your own environment anyway, go completely native? That doesn't really help you distribute your games safely over the web to multiple people. Also, cross platform development is actually quite time consuming and hard, and the performance benefeits vs a VM are not really worth it for the average 2D flash-type game.

wladimir 14y ago
> Well, I think this demo kind of proves why not: it doesn't work the same way on everyones browser. Still, you are comparing this to flash, which has only one complete implementation at all which is only available on a subset of platforms and not open source. This number of platforms is decreasing, not increasing (ie, Android dropped). > That doesn't really help you distribute your games safely over the web to multiple people. Agreed, no one solved the problem of cross-platform application development (both desktop and mobile) yet. And flash doesn't succeed much, if any, better than HTML5 in this regard. But looking forward HTML5 looks more promising too me.
- rschmitty 14y ago
  > Still, you are comparing this to flash, which has only one complete implementation at all which is only available on a subset of platforms Huh? A flash swf or flash compiled app is available on _all_ platforms. We aren't talking Flash on the iPhone, this is Flash _compiled_ to native for the iPhone. Haxe NME and Unity3D are similar in that they let you write once and deploy to many. They also in fact let you "deploy to flash". They do this because if you know your audience, you know you need to still support IE8 and while you get IE8 you also get IE7/6. Believe it or not businesses are locked into these horrible browsers. Going 100% HTML5 is cool and trendy but why would you elect to cut off a subset of your users (who you are trying to make $ off of) Haxe and Adobe (not sure about Unity) are also allowing you to export to HTML5. This would be interesting if they compared performance with that. We are all looking forward to HTML5 taking over, but we are far from that place right now.
  - wladimir 14y ago
    > Haxe NME and Unity3D are similar in that they let you write once and deploy to many. They also in fact let you "deploy to flash". I think you're distorting my argument a bit -- I wouldn't invest in developing new flash app or game, but if you can get flash support for free through "compile to flash" I don't see any reason for not supporting it as extra option.
  - kranner 14y ago