Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by mortenjorck on Saturday June 12, 2010 @03:03AM
(#1425682)
Guys. This isn't funny anymore.
HTML5 is a set of markup standards that, in conjunction with other open technologies, can be used to create dynamic, standards-compliant web interfaces.
Flash is a virtual machine. It is good for a lot of things you would use a VM for. It is not good for a lot of things you wouldn't use a VM for.
Some hardware manufacturers don't want virtual machines in their vertically-integrated ecosystems, and somehow this turned into a holy war between things that have no reason to be at war.
I think there would be a lot less hate for Flash if Macromedia and later Adobe had stuck to promoting it as an RIA environment and not as a solution to everything else.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by olihb on Saturday June 12, 2010 @03:30PM
(#1426403)
I think Adobe is starting to get it with Flex. Flex is really nice to develop BI widgets and dashboards. We use it to present interactive data to our clients. I can whip up a dashboard binded to a DB in a matters of hours.
I'm not sure that's possible with html5 or javafx. I'm not talking about the end result but the time frame.
But yeah, flash for banner ads, simple video players, etc. sucks.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by coderdude on Friday June 11, 2010 @07:24PM
(#1425114)
Sigh. How did a markup language get pit against a vector-based animation plugin? I know that literally it is not, and that we're talking about canvas here, but the Web is being flooded by this misinformation. I can't even think of analogy for what this is akin to.
Edit: I just thought about this, but SVG qualifies as a markup language. So it's not inconceivable for a markup language to compete (at least in part) with Flash, just in this particular case it is erroneous.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by wmf on Friday June 11, 2010 @09:23PM
(#1425332)
Flash is hardly a vector-based animation plugin, although animation and video do comprise 99% of its usage. Likewise, HTML5 is not just canvas; it's <video>, <audio>, websocket, local storage, etc.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by coderdude on Friday June 11, 2010 @09:37PM
(#1425358)
I think you've made a good point there. Coupled with JavaScript, perhaps HTML5 as a whole can in fact present itself as competition for all that Flash does.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by mrvir on Saturday June 12, 2010 @05:53AM
(#1425784)
Yes, and I would like to see HTML5 version of that Asteroids demo that would work in IE. I mean a nice demo, but not working in half of the browsers out there.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by BoppreH on Friday June 11, 2010 @07:20PM
(#1425100)
HTML5 is not up to Flash at this time. There's no decent IDE, it's sluggish and it's not even a standard yet. I don't doubt its capabilities, but for NOW it's not doing enough to deserve the hype.
So, please, stop making this silly comparisons, especially because you are comparing different PRODUCTS, not only different platforms as you advertise. You are just hurting the image of the platform.
I'll be glad to use HTML5 in all my works when it's finished, but for now my answer is "hell no."
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by pedrokost on Friday June 11, 2010 @06:16PM
(#1424939)
This is just amazing. THis is what i needed. It clearly shows how FLash uses less CPU and runs smoother than HTML5. Maybe HTML5 will perform like Flash today in two or three years, but till then Flash will also improve.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by chc on Friday June 11, 2010 @07:08PM
(#1425066)
It's hard to tell since there isn't always 100% parity between the two examples (look at the difference between the Javascript Asteroids and the line-based Flash one!), but performance seems to be about equal in most cases, adjusting for the one that looks simpler usually using a bit less.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by targz on Friday June 11, 2010 @08:09PM
(#1425211)
Did you see the "Yummy Raspberries" demo on this site? It's a pretty exact... well, raspberries to raspberries comparison. Unless one or the other was poorly implemented it's the same demo on both sides, again with Flash outperforming.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by ryan-allen on Friday June 11, 2010 @08:15PM
(#1425224)
One difference I suppose is that in order to create these kinds of Flash applications is that you have to purchase an IDE for the tune of (here in Australia) about $1200 AUD.
Now, that's not too big a deal given computers cost more than that usually but Flash is a very unstable and barely useable IDE. I liken it to spending over a thousand dollars to get slapped in the face.
Disclaimer: I worked with Flash, a lot, for over 3 years. Haven't worked with it in over 4 years, never been happier!
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by BoppreH on Friday June 11, 2010 @11:21PM
(#1425485)
Not for .fla files, which I think was what the GP was referring to. FLA is a closed, proprietary format and as far as I know the only way to create or edit it is using Adobe Flash.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by BoppreH on Friday June 11, 2010 @11:25PM
(#1425488)
FlashDevelop is great, but it's just an editor.
It still relies on an external compiler to do the dirty job.
Although there are free tools to compile ActionScript code into swf files, if you have a .fla anywhere in your development cycle you are stuck with Adobe Flash.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by bloodnok on Saturday June 12, 2010 @01:02AM
(#1425586)
Argh... all this makes my head hurt.
Nowadays it seems silly to have to have 3rd party plugins for simple audio/video. HTML5 is good for that.
Then we have a markup language for rendering content for screen/print/whatever, a fluffy interpreted script language and a 90s-throwback framebuffer emulation trying to pass itself off as the be-all and end-all of cross-platform application development. Then it gets itself into a war with a single-vendor browser plugin known for its lack of speed and gaping security holes.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by grails4life on Friday June 11, 2010 @09:20PM
(#1425328)
Why is it always HTML5 vs flash? What about using both flash and HTML5? There is fabridge.js, after all. Its not all or nothing. Granted dependency on plugins sucks, but for now I see Flash as a supplement to a web application where I need things like audio, sockets and advanced graphics to work across browsers.
Re:HTML5 vs Flash
by c00p3r on Saturday June 12, 2010 @12:15AM
(#1425533)
What this page missing, is compare of insecurity, portability and speed issues. =)
btw, no one think it is enough of flame? After Apple's explanation, after all those security holes, inability to deliver a working product to platform other than win32, inability to address performance issues on linux32 and do on.
Isn't it obvious, that flash is poorly designed, non-portable, insecure and outdated technology, the unnecessary artificial layer which should be replaced due to evolution of modern web browsers and open standards?
Why I need separate javascript engine when it implemented in browser along with separate, unoptimized and buggy rendering engine as a some binary blob which crashes all the time? Because of crappy banners or stupid primitive games? Hardly.
So, flash will stay around as an optional add-on for windows browsers, but obviously not as something 'standard', leave alone 'cross platform'.
HTML5 is a set of markup standards that, in conjunction with other open technologies, can be used to create dynamic, standards-compliant web interfaces.
Flash is a virtual machine. It is good for a lot of things you would use a VM for. It is not good for a lot of things you wouldn't use a VM for.
Some hardware manufacturers don't want virtual machines in their vertically-integrated ecosystems, and somehow this turned into a holy war between things that have no reason to be at war.
* Ever more obnoxious ads
* Longer load times
* System lag
* Instability, security (complexity == bugs)
* Persistent supercookies
A VM is not appropriate for banner ads.
A VM is not appropriate for a restaurant menu.
A VM is appropriate for a complex RIA such as http://www.audiotool.com .
I think there would be a lot less hate for Flash if Macromedia and later Adobe had stuck to promoting it as an RIA environment and not as a solution to everything else.
I'm not sure that's possible with html5 or javafx. I'm not talking about the end result but the time frame.
But yeah, flash for banner ads, simple video players, etc. sucks.
Edit: I just thought about this, but SVG qualifies as a markup language. So it's not inconceivable for a markup language to compete (at least in part) with Flash, just in this particular case it is erroneous.
I'd like to see HTML5 version of these:
http://blog.alternativaplatform.com/ru/files/2008/04/bunker....
http://blog.alternativaplatform.com/ru/files/2009/02/hero.sw...
http://blog.inspirit.ru/wp-content/uploads/fluids3d/FluidSol...
https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webg...
The last one is capable of being run in WebGL shaders (using the GPU).
Now, I don't think HTML5 solves everything (manipulating binary data, for example) but the above are all solved by WebGL.
http://www.bemmu.com/experiments/hl1/index.html
Sorry, no one would be impressed by this just because it's running inside a web browser.
I'm using Chrome on Mac OS X, Flash 10.1(built-in into Chrome)
So, please, stop making this silly comparisons, especially because you are comparing different PRODUCTS, not only different platforms as you advertise. You are just hurting the image of the platform.
I'll be glad to use HTML5 in all my works when it's finished, but for now my answer is "hell no."
Now, that's not too big a deal given computers cost more than that usually but Flash is a very unstable and barely useable IDE. I liken it to spending over a thousand dollars to get slapped in the face.
Disclaimer: I worked with Flash, a lot, for over 3 years. Haven't worked with it in over 4 years, never been happier!
There are several free (and open source) tools for creating flash content.
And I have to admit it is quite unstable.
It still relies on an external compiler to do the dirty job.
Although there are free tools to compile ActionScript code into swf files, if you have a .fla anywhere in your development cycle you are stuck with Adobe Flash.
Nowadays it seems silly to have to have 3rd party plugins for simple audio/video. HTML5 is good for that.
Then we have a markup language for rendering content for screen/print/whatever, a fluffy interpreted script language and a 90s-throwback framebuffer emulation trying to pass itself off as the be-all and end-all of cross-platform application development. Then it gets itself into a war with a single-vendor browser plugin known for its lack of speed and gaping security holes.
I choose neither. EndOfRant.
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=53656
64k is not enough for the html markup alone. Regardless of audio, graphics recourses, SFX, and animation.
Ahahahaha.
btw, no one think it is enough of flame? After Apple's explanation, after all those security holes, inability to deliver a working product to platform other than win32, inability to address performance issues on linux32 and do on.
Isn't it obvious, that flash is poorly designed, non-portable, insecure and outdated technology, the unnecessary artificial layer which should be replaced due to evolution of modern web browsers and open standards?
Why I need separate javascript engine when it implemented in browser along with separate, unoptimized and buggy rendering engine as a some binary blob which crashes all the time? Because of crappy banners or stupid primitive games? Hardly.
So, flash will stay around as an optional add-on for windows browsers, but obviously not as something 'standard', leave alone 'cross platform'.