News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by jedrek on Saturday April 11, 2015 @01:27PM (#9359939)
It's amazing how quickly people forget why Flash became so popular: up until Mozilla Navigator got up to around 0.6, all the browsers out there sucked. Navigator 4.x had document.layers, pretty much every script had to be re-written twice to work on NN and IE... that's when they didn't crash and burn.

If you wanted a bit of interface "smoothness" more complicated than roll-over image links, and you wanted to only have to do it once and be pretty sure it wouldn't crash your browser, Flash was the obvious choice. And let's remember that Flash was also a replacement for the true scourge of the internet from 15 years ago: Java applets.

I think that Adobe could've worked with browser developers and saved Flash, but they didn't care. Flash was dead a decade ago, when Adobe bought Macromedia. AIR was a poor man's Java, Flash's basic components were crap. Hell, I remember complaining about the video component and an ex-Adobe employee commented, "oh yeah, sorry about that, I think some interns wrote that over the summer".

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by jakejake on Saturday April 11, 2015 @02:08PM (#9360076)
Flash also started as vector based animations. It allowed large graphics that were very small in size. Not a small matter back when most home users were connecting on 56k modems. This is a time when a medium sized image would take 30 seconds to load in your screen.

It was simply mind-blowing at the time to see a page with rich graphics that would load so quickly.

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by seanp2k2 on Saturday April 11, 2015 @02:57PM (#9360278)
Flash was about 10 years ahead of its time.

There's still stuff you can't fully do with JS on all browsers with market shares large enough to cater to. The problem with Flash IMO was more how people used it than the technology itself; if we wanted to make sites with large photo backgrounds that blur and have some slight movement of elements, that was pretty easy to do with Flash 10 years before it became easy to do with JS. The vector stuff was huge at the time.

Lastly, re: CPU usage (mentioned in article), Flash could be a hog, but plenty of sites still eat 100% of 1 core just to re-sort a list of things on screen on a maxed-out rMBP because of their poorly-implemented logic in whatever the new JS framework is this week. Flash at least wasn't usually that bad, and graphics smoothness was way higher with Flash than stuff I've seen using JS animations.

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by frik on Saturday April 11, 2015 @05:09PM (#9360854)
Flash was not 10 years ahead.

It's more like the web browser war with IE6 winning and no further development between 2001 and 2006 halted the web development. The AJAX technology was added to Firefox in the meantime (2004) so that IE5+ and Firefox supported AJAX and Web 2.0 was born. As W3C XHTML 1 and especially XHTML2 failed, HTML4 was enhanced to HTML5 thanks to the WHATWG.

SVG was well known in early 2000 but only Adobe provided a plugin for IE. No web browser supported SVG.

There was also the SMIL standard that is an replacement to Adobe Flash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronized_Multimedia_Integra... , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML%2BTIME , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML%2BSMIL

As Adobe bought Macromedia and the focus shifted from vector animation to video and 3D. The feature creep with Actionscript 2/3/Flex/3D-API/etc. decreased the stability and quality of Flash. The mobile counterpart FlashLite was always several features behind the desktop version.

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by radley on Saturday April 11, 2015 @05:20PM (#9360894)
Up through AS3 Flash was fantastic. We saw some of the most amazing animations and multimedia up through that era, including H.264 video players.

But Flex. OMG Flex. Trying to bend 180° to serve developers was never going to work. After that it was all downhill.

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by radley on Saturday April 11, 2015 @07:29PM (#9361242)
You're right, Flash wasn't 10 years ahead of its time. It's far more:

Tokyo Plastic's Drum Machine: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/drum

... from 2003 (or earlier?): http://board.flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?516504-rockst...

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by mbebenita on Saturday April 11, 2015 @09:04PM (#9361563)
Canvas perf has almost caught up, ... what's lacking is tooling.

Here is Shumway playing back this fantastic animation:

http://www.areweflashyet.com/shumway/examples/inspector/insp...

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by white-flame on Sunday April 12, 2015 @01:19AM (#9362247)
Performance is okay, but the canvas vector rendering in HTML5 still fails horribly when it comes to adjacent edges.

In that animation, look how the black outlines against the grey clothing leaves a white blur. That's a fundamental flaw that's been with canvas since the beginning, and is a severe problem in the general assumptions of immediate mode rendering. It's especially terrible when doing tiled 2d, or polygons, where these transparent edge gaps stick out the worst.

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by radley on Saturday April 11, 2015 @09:11PM (#9361579)
There's some audio drift, but good to see it's close =)
Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by vezzy-fnord on Saturday April 11, 2015 @02:23PM (#9360144)
If you wanted a bit of interface "smoothness" more complicated than roll-over image links, and you wanted to only have to do it once and be pretty sure it wouldn't crash your browser...

I don't think this is an indictment on browsers and how they "sucked" back then. Browsers did their jobs just fine as tools for viewing static hyperlinked documents over the network, but it was the huge level of adopters who wanted to build full application stacks on top of the web that necessitated browsers host a concurrent application platform beside the host OS, by any kludgy means necessary.

In some ways, we have a Pyrrhic victory of sorts.

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by radley on Saturday April 11, 2015 @05:13PM (#9360869)
Not only that, Flash was a designers tool. Creative people easily understood the video-like interface and could make amazing stuff quickly without first learning up to 8 different code-based languages. Flash was great after Macromedia. It took a beating by Adobe when they started focusing on Flex instead.

Flash was essentially dead when Adobe introduced the Flash Builder / Flash Designer mess.

Re:Gone in a Flash: The Race to Save the Internet's Least Fa... by userbinator on Saturday April 11, 2015 @06:49PM (#9361140)
If you wanted a bit of interface "smoothness" more complicated than roll-over image links, and you wanted to only have to do it once and be pretty sure it wouldn't crash your browser, Flash was the obvious choice.

Also, games. I still have a directory full of various Flash games I've saved over the years. They packed a lot of content in a tiny file, due to their vector-based nature. SVG looks absolutely obese compared to the compact vector format used by SWF.