Some of these are really welcome changes for me (native JSON, bezier curves, TLS sockets, DisplayObjectContainer.removeChildren).
And yet...
And yet I'm still planning on switching my web app to HTML5.
This is coming from a guy who's sunk over two years of development into Flash. It's not because the runtime is buggy and/or crashy (it is, but it's not that bad). It's not because it's so much easier to develop in HTML5 (I will dearly miss AS3 and generating art assets in Flash). It's not because HTML5 has more useful features than Flash does (Flash has more, and they're implemented more reliably).
I'm doing it because Flash doesn't run on tablets [1]. And that's what my users want. I don't have the time to develop three native clients for iOS, Android, and Windows 8, so HTML5 it is.
I will miss Flash dearly. I'm praying that between some combination of backbone.js, easel.js, raphael.js, and inkscape, I'll be able to build something as expressive as my old system.
[1] Those new Android ones included. I've used those tablets that "support Flash". It's a nightmare.
Is it really easier to develop in HTML5?? I haven't looked into it lately, but it was a nightmare last time I checked. Compatibility problems, massively different performance across browsers (so you have to go lowest common denominator), every guy and his dog coming with his own layer of abstraction and libraries to make for deficiencies that simply don't exist in AS3...
I'd be interested in looking into it again if you can truly achieve the level of compatibility, penetration and dependability (performance-wise) that you can achieve with flash. Any pointers will be appreciated.
I was originally in your shoes, but after my first real attempt at writing a game in js/html I came to the conclusion it's still a ton easier in flash.
If you are talking about something more static (e.g. a non-game application or a fairly static game like a match-3) it's probably less of an issue.
I guess crashing isn't a feature. I'm not trying to be a troll, but let's be honest -- There has never been a version of Flash that hasn't piece a complete piece of garbage when it comes to stability and performance.
If Adobe "got it" this list of "What's new" would include words like "removed" and "deprecated" and "eliminated." Those words don't appear once. They've just thrown more stuff into the kitchen sink that was already overflowing.
They have amazing developers, but there is a reason Flash is the beast it is, and this isn't moving it in the right direction in terms of delivering a stable, secure and fast experience.
I'd disagree. I've come to realize that crashing is usually either the developer's fault (e.g. trying to do something that doesn't make sense) or the browser's (with Firefox I'd get crashes constantly, since their sandboxing actually breaks the plugin more often than it protects from it; with Chrome, using the same version of the plugin, I get none).
Still, if you look at what they've done in the past couple of years you'd see a lot in trying to revert that situation. Forcing a maximum tick rate of 60hz (was 120), dropping memory use and performance (tick rate goes to 2hz when hidden on a separate tab, or out of the screen); coming up with new browser APIs so the browse can control the plugin performance; and on and on.
They do deprecate a lot over the years. However, is "eliminated" something people really want? The platform prides itself in the fact that SWFs that worked for Flash 2 still work today, despite the changes in the language and virtual machine. So unless it's a change of security policy, nothing breaks or is "eliminated"; as a developer, I find this to be a good thing as I don't have to have a client coming to me after 6 months complaining about something not working anymore.
Flash is a platform that allows people to do a lot. Including shitty binaries. And there's not much defense against it.
And personally I still have my browsers crash more because of shitty HTML/JS than Flash. YMMV.
My experience doesn't match your statements at all. I run a Flash website (it's a game), and Flash is pretty much rock solid for me. My site has been up over 3 years, has over 80k lines of Actionscript, and I can count the number of times I've seen Flash crash on one hand. Even if you include reports from my users who have Flash crash on them, the number is less than 20. That's probably not too far from any software - including browsers themselves.
I'm not a huge Flash fan or anything; I don't care much for Actionscript as a language and I'm constantly looking at switching to HTML5, which I'm sure I'll have to do eventually. But Flash crashes aren't really an issue for me at all. I wonder if your poor experiences in Flash are created by the developer of those specific Flash applications that are crashing.
Personally, I think the Flash 11 features are amazing and, even if Flash may be losing relevance, I think Adobe's going in the right direction with it.
"There has never been a version of Flash that hasn't piece a complete piece of garbage when it comes to stability and performance."
YMMZ. I'm using Chrome right now and I'd say despite playing lots of Flash games and watching players that use Flash, most of the crashes that happen are due to the browser.
ActionScript 3.0 is what JavaScript should be. Actual classes, typed variables, and a platform that works the same in every browser.
Contrarian view but I see flash improving its lead on html. Adobe doesn’t have to deal with a bureaucratic standards body and can act decisively when making platform changes. Ex: I’d like to see MS, Mozilla, IE, Chrome, Apple, Opera all agree to implement similar features in Flash 11 (and work the same in each browser). Then I’d like to see them agree on new feature sets when Flash 12, 13, 14 come out etc.
I just don’t see how five browser vendors can equal the agility of one flash vendor. Too much red tape in the html congress…
Yes, Flash is proprietary and it doesn’t work well for mobile. All I can say is that I’ve been burned one too many times by IE not showing CSS table borders on empty cells (last time I checked IE8 still requires that damned ampersand in each cell!). I’m fed up with browser incompatibility. All of the JavaScript frameworks (and now with Google making Dart) confirm that JavaScript is inherently outdated and broken. I gave up on html for Flex and am not looking back.
As an HTML/JS developer I really appreciate these powerful features that HTML5 will never have, and wasn't designed to have.
People who say "use HTML5 instead of Flash" obviously have limited experience in actually building HTML web apps and sites.
Ever tried making a javascript pre-loader? Not gonna happen. There's no jquery.bytesLoaded to the rescue. Even before the web-app has loaded, HTML is struggling to stay in the same game as Flash or native apps. Pre-loading sound files and other assets and relaying the bytes loaded to the user as a progress bar just isn't possible in HTML. You might be able to cook up a half-baked progress loader in JS, but it will suck, I promise.
It's obviously true that for SIMPLE things like menus and other interface features, HTML5 is the choice. But when you start getting seriously rich and multimedia heavy, then you need flash or native apps. And I prefer the Flash development and deployment freedom over native app lock-in any day.
Flash should be allowed as an optional plugin on iOS devices, simple as that. Then people who want it can have it, and people who cry about Flash can turn it off and stick with their iTunes account.
Strangely enough I've seen a few preloaders working just fine. Are you aware about <progress> element in HTML5, XMLHttpRequest Level 2, Progress Events?
The most interesting thing about Flash 11 is the Stage3D and how it compares against webgl. It looks like IE10 won't support webgl (at least the version in WDP doesn't), and webgl penetration on the mobile platform hasn't gone very far yet. This will make Flash 11 very attractive to developers who want accelerated 3d content. Although, the very fact webgl exists (and has implementations) means it definitely isn't out of the game.
There are 3 free implementations of WebGL, and I think Opera support is on the way. If there's a WebGL game that you want to play, you can install Opera, Chrome, Safari or Firefox.
As for mobile, neither Apple nor Microsoft will support it. Flash will be around for years, but platform support is on the wane.
I'm very surprised to see native 64bit linux support as one of their first bullets. It may very well be too little too late though. As of late, the only thing that I've used flash for has been to supplement my <audio> tags.
The native JSON / jpeg-xr / LZMA support will certainly make flash feel somewhat more lightweight, but I don't think it'll be enough to make it not feel bulky.
Dip into Chrome for a couple games and to skip QuickTime bugs affecting YouTube/Vimeo (QT loads the whole stream, then drops and begins re-downloading if I pause and resume).
Now that the rdio client is Flash-free it’s pretty easy for me to live without Flash.
For those who want to take melling up on this challenge (and I would encourage it because it's an eye-opening experience to see much your favorite websites depend on Flash, or not), this extension is a nice bridge.
Flash embeds aren't loaded automatically. Instead, a placeholder appears instead. Clicking on that placeholder loads the Flash file, so you can selectively choose which Flash embeds to see.
going on 8 months without flash on any of my home machines. i prefer it, i find that the content from flash websites tends to be poor quality or unneccesary distractions, my internet is better without it.
Note: "High-efficiency SWF compression support: Developers can now take advantage of LZMA compression for their SWF files. LZMA compression can reduce SWF size by up to 40 percent, enabling users to benefit from richer experiences with shorter download times and reduced bandwidth consumption."
If I understand correctly, they must have used the code developed by Igor Pavlov, the author of 7z, who made it LGPL. LGPL means his code must be in a separate DLL, can anybody confirm that?
This one states the contents of the sdk is in public domain. It seems to apply only to the core lzma compression/decompression code, not to the full 7-zip util (which, I agree, is covered by the GPL).
One would have to check more precisely, but I suppose the Adobe guys did that.
[+] [-] ender7|14 years ago|reply
And yet...
And yet I'm still planning on switching my web app to HTML5.
This is coming from a guy who's sunk over two years of development into Flash. It's not because the runtime is buggy and/or crashy (it is, but it's not that bad). It's not because it's so much easier to develop in HTML5 (I will dearly miss AS3 and generating art assets in Flash). It's not because HTML5 has more useful features than Flash does (Flash has more, and they're implemented more reliably).
I'm doing it because Flash doesn't run on tablets [1]. And that's what my users want. I don't have the time to develop three native clients for iOS, Android, and Windows 8, so HTML5 it is.
I will miss Flash dearly. I'm praying that between some combination of backbone.js, easel.js, raphael.js, and inkscape, I'll be able to build something as expressive as my old system.
[1] Those new Android ones included. I've used those tablets that "support Flash". It's a nightmare.
[+] [-] mahmud|14 years ago|reply
Yeah, same here .. writing HTML and Android apps. Even our stock-take app for inventory control, I wrote it in SWT and deploy via WebStart.
I know.
[+] [-] muyuu|14 years ago|reply
I'd be interested in looking into it again if you can truly achieve the level of compatibility, penetration and dependability (performance-wise) that you can achieve with flash. Any pointers will be appreciated.
[+] [-] ido|14 years ago|reply
If you are talking about something more static (e.g. a non-game application or a fairly static game like a match-3) it's probably less of an issue.
[+] [-] gtdminh|14 years ago|reply
i dont think develop in html5 is more productive than in flash. backup your comment with some evidence please
[+] [-] gerggerg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gtdminh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidu|14 years ago|reply
If Adobe "got it" this list of "What's new" would include words like "removed" and "deprecated" and "eliminated." Those words don't appear once. They've just thrown more stuff into the kitchen sink that was already overflowing.
They have amazing developers, but there is a reason Flash is the beast it is, and this isn't moving it in the right direction in terms of delivering a stable, secure and fast experience.
[+] [-] whatever_dude|14 years ago|reply
Still, if you look at what they've done in the past couple of years you'd see a lot in trying to revert that situation. Forcing a maximum tick rate of 60hz (was 120), dropping memory use and performance (tick rate goes to 2hz when hidden on a separate tab, or out of the screen); coming up with new browser APIs so the browse can control the plugin performance; and on and on.
They do deprecate a lot over the years. However, is "eliminated" something people really want? The platform prides itself in the fact that SWFs that worked for Flash 2 still work today, despite the changes in the language and virtual machine. So unless it's a change of security policy, nothing breaks or is "eliminated"; as a developer, I find this to be a good thing as I don't have to have a client coming to me after 6 months complaining about something not working anymore.
Flash is a platform that allows people to do a lot. Including shitty binaries. And there's not much defense against it.
And personally I still have my browsers crash more because of shitty HTML/JS than Flash. YMMV.
[+] [-] Fizzer|14 years ago|reply
I'm not a huge Flash fan or anything; I don't care much for Actionscript as a language and I'm constantly looking at switching to HTML5, which I'm sure I'll have to do eventually. But Flash crashes aren't really an issue for me at all. I wonder if your poor experiences in Flash are created by the developer of those specific Flash applications that are crashing.
Personally, I think the Flash 11 features are amazing and, even if Flash may be losing relevance, I think Adobe's going in the right direction with it.
[+] [-] aidenn0|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomasgerbe|14 years ago|reply
YMMZ. I'm using Chrome right now and I'd say despite playing lots of Flash games and watching players that use Flash, most of the crashes that happen are due to the browser.
[+] [-] magicalhobo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noamsml|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] racecar789|14 years ago|reply
Contrarian view but I see flash improving its lead on html. Adobe doesn’t have to deal with a bureaucratic standards body and can act decisively when making platform changes. Ex: I’d like to see MS, Mozilla, IE, Chrome, Apple, Opera all agree to implement similar features in Flash 11 (and work the same in each browser). Then I’d like to see them agree on new feature sets when Flash 12, 13, 14 come out etc.
I just don’t see how five browser vendors can equal the agility of one flash vendor. Too much red tape in the html congress…
Yes, Flash is proprietary and it doesn’t work well for mobile. All I can say is that I’ve been burned one too many times by IE not showing CSS table borders on empty cells (last time I checked IE8 still requires that damned ampersand in each cell!). I’m fed up with browser incompatibility. All of the JavaScript frameworks (and now with Google making Dart) confirm that JavaScript is inherently outdated and broken. I gave up on html for Flex and am not looking back.
Just my humble opinion…
[+] [-] BillPosters|14 years ago|reply
People who say "use HTML5 instead of Flash" obviously have limited experience in actually building HTML web apps and sites.
Ever tried making a javascript pre-loader? Not gonna happen. There's no jquery.bytesLoaded to the rescue. Even before the web-app has loaded, HTML is struggling to stay in the same game as Flash or native apps. Pre-loading sound files and other assets and relaying the bytes loaded to the user as a progress bar just isn't possible in HTML. You might be able to cook up a half-baked progress loader in JS, but it will suck, I promise.
It's obviously true that for SIMPLE things like menus and other interface features, HTML5 is the choice. But when you start getting seriously rich and multimedia heavy, then you need flash or native apps. And I prefer the Flash development and deployment freedom over native app lock-in any day.
Flash should be allowed as an optional plugin on iOS devices, simple as that. Then people who want it can have it, and people who cry about Flash can turn it off and stick with their iTunes account.
[+] [-] rimantas|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keeperofdakeys|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
As for mobile, neither Apple nor Microsoft will support it. Flash will be around for years, but platform support is on the wane.
[+] [-] SimHacker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjcm|14 years ago|reply
The native JSON / jpeg-xr / LZMA support will certainly make flash feel somewhat more lightweight, but I don't think it'll be enough to make it not feel bulky.
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/141/tn_14157.html
http://www.cultofmac.com/67699/uninstall-flash-for-mac-os-x-...
[+] [-] stilist|14 years ago|reply
Dip into Chrome for a couple games and to skip QuickTime bugs affecting YouTube/Vimeo (QT loads the whole stream, then drops and begins re-downloading if I pause and resume).
Now that the rdio client is Flash-free it’s pretty easy for me to live without Flash.
[+] [-] mikeleeorg|14 years ago|reply
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiab...
For those who want to take melling up on this challenge (and I would encourage it because it's an eye-opening experience to see much your favorite websites depend on Flash, or not), this extension is a nice bridge.
Flash embeds aren't loaded automatically. Instead, a placeholder appears instead. Clicking on that placeholder loads the Flash file, so you can selectively choose which Flash embeds to see.
[+] [-] mrb|14 years ago|reply
On their iPads, smartphones, etc.
[+] [-] notatoad|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgroves|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acqq|14 years ago|reply
If I understand correctly, they must have used the code developed by Igor Pavlov, the author of 7z, who made it LGPL. LGPL means his code must be in a separate DLL, can anybody confirm that?
Note that this guy, to which Adobe refers:
http://blog.kaourantin.net/?p=124
claims it's public domain, but it's not:
http://www.7-zip.org/
[+] [-] carussell|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wilya|14 years ago|reply
This one states the contents of the sdk is in public domain. It seems to apply only to the core lzma compression/decompression code, not to the full 7-zip util (which, I agree, is covered by the GPL).
One would have to check more precisely, but I suppose the Adobe guys did that.