[Satchmo]

With more smart phones on the market, and tablets down the road, the need for web standards is apparent. Flash doesn't play on the millions of iPhones. Silverlight hasn't really caught on in a big way. And then there's HTML 5.

Is Flash so entrenched that it will continue to be used by web developers? Or will there be a concerted move away from proprietary add-ons.

[rollercoaster375]

Most developers that I know, when given the option, avoid flash at all costs... So my guess is that more HTML will be catching on.

[PB PM]

One can only hope developers move away from flash.

[kieran]

Funny you started this thread. I was just talking about this on Twitter after coming up on a website at work that was all Flash. Well, the genius IT dept. at work decided I don't need Flash, so no website for me.

I Tweeted that Flash should go away and instantly got a reply saying that this person can't wait for Flash on the iPhone. That would be terrible.

I really hope HTML 5 starts to catch on and just takes over in place of Flash.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by PB PM One can only hope developers move away from flash.

QFT.

HTML5* support in IE can't come soon enough.

* Note: It's "HTML5", not "HTML 5".

[Banana]

I'm no webbie. What's so great about HTML5? Flash support builtin?

[Unch]

The thing with Flash is that there is two parts to it, the plugin that HTML5 can replace, and Flash the £400+ app that designers use to create the wizzy effects that the plugin displays.

If there isn't a comprehensive tool to allow designers to do the kinds of things in HTML5 that they can do in Flash in an (relatively - I always found Flash a PITA to use) easy WYSIWYG-type way then I think there might be some resistance to dumping Flash altogether.

I do wonder though if once Flash does go to the way of the dodo, is it going to be harder to block ads and other crap that can be easily segregated from the main page because they're plugins that can be blocked a-la-ClickToFlash, or will things become more complicated? Will we need a ClickToCanvas tool?

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Unch I do wonder though if once Flash does go to the way of the dodo, is it going to be harder to block ads and other crap that can be easily segregated from the main page because they're plugins that can be blocked a-la-ClickToFlash, or will things become more complicated? Will we need a ClickToCanvas tool?

Again, I'm no web developer, but from what I've seen with hosts file, it seems to be customary for sites to host their ads on a different server so going to msn.com, one still can view the contents while blocking the ads from ads1.msn.com. Of course, this is not always true and there are cases where ads are served from same server. Even so, I've seen other posts that ad blocker for Safari can block the facebook ads which I know originates from same server that serves the main content, which I attributed it to parsing the php structure and thus blocking it (this is just my guess; I could be off here, though).

Like spam, though, it'll be just one more arms race.

[Partial]

Flash isn't going to go away anytime soon. Adobe Flex is gaining steam in the world of rich internet applications, and even in some desktop-enabled web apps through the Adobe Air player.

For those who don't know, Flex is a separate entity from flash, both built around a similar core set of technologies. The next version (version 4) of Flex will be packaged in a commercial IDE from Adobe called "Flash Builder Professional", so they're blurring the lines further with the next release.

Here are some reasons why Flash/Flex isn't going away anytime soon in my opinion.

1. Sending XML/JSON datasets (especially in large ones where pagination is not possible) over the pipe is not nearly as fast as sending binary. This doesn't matter if you're sending small chunks of data every now and again, though. The amf channel of communication for sending binary works with a slew of server-side languages is my understanding. I know it works with java, .net, php and ruby.

2. Speed of development. Flex is a free, open-source tool and while the development environment is a bit pricey for what it is, there isn't anything close to rivaling it imo in the set of built in controls. Also, there are some really good frameworks available such as Spring for Actionscript, which results in really clean modules if you know what you're doing.

3. Ease of development. It has a java like syntax and strongly typed objects. Using the amf communication discussed above, I can send strongly typed objects over the wire and receive an object automatically mapped to the strongly typed client class. In addition to this, the semantics and syntax are very similar to java.

4. Commercial support. Companies investing millions of dollars into projects like to cover their tails in case something isn't working right. The volume of Flex experts/consultants as well as Adobe's fantastic documentation (just like javadoc) and commercial support all contribute to the cover-your-tail element.

5. Possible performance improvement. I don't know if this is true, but I've heard that since a SWF is ultimately byte code it executes far faster than javascript, which is interpreted. I personally did not believe this to be the case until I heard it from a senior architect, so I'm not sure about it.

The Live Cycle Data Management Service really makes Flex an even more powerful tool as well. This is pricey at 10k an instance though.

That said, those are just a few reasons from a flex/java developer. As a developer I love it. It's easy to use, the documentation is great, it's a beautiful language with the strongly typed objects compared to the (very limited) javascript I've seen. The rates are high. Life is good with flex.

As a user, I can understand why you guys want it to go away.

[FFL]

Originally Posted by Partial Flash isn't going to go away anytime soon. You guys are kidding yourselves: The reasons why: 1. Sending XML/JSON datasets (especially in large ones where pagination is not possible) over the pipe is not nearly as fast as sending binary. This doesn't matter if you're sending small chunks of data every now and again, though. 2. Speed of development. Flex is a free, open-source tool and while the development environment is a bit pricey for what it is, there isn't anything close to rivaling it imo in the set of built in controls. Also, there are some really good frameworks available such as Spring for Actionscript, which results in really clean modules if you know what you're doing. 3. Ease of development. It has a java like syntax and strongly typed objects. Using the amf communication discussed above, I can send strongly typed objects over the wire and receive an object automatically mapped to the strongly typed client class. In addition to this, the semantics and syntax are very similar to java. 4. Commercial support. Companies investing millions of dollars into projects like to cover their tails in case something isn't working right. The volume of Flex experts/consultants as well as Adobe's fantastic documentation (just like javadoc) and commercial support. 5. Possible performance improvement. I don't know if this is true, but I've heard that since a SWF is ultimately byte code it executes far faster than javascript, which is interpreted. I personally did not believe this to be the case until I heard it from a senior architect, so I'm not sure about it. The Live Cycle Data Management Service really makes Flex an even more powerful tool as well. This is pricey at 10k an instance though. That said, those are just a few reasons from a flex/java developer. As a developer I love it. It's easy to use, the documentation is great, it's a beautiful language with the strongly typed objects compared to the (very limited) javascript I've seen. The rates are high. Life is good with flex. As a user, I can understand why you guys want it to go away.

For those not familiar with "Flex":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flex

[Kickaha]

Partial, just as a data point, at my workplace we're moving away from Flex/ActionScript/Flash as fast as our fingers can take us. To where? HTML5, JavaScript, and some really slick frameworks.

And let's just say 'my workplace' is... well... friggin' huge.

We did the analysis, and despite a strong contingent of Adobe supporters, it just didn't justify the expense, the work, or the uncertainty moving forward for our customers. Open standards won out.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Partial Flash isn't going to go away anytime soon. ... As a user, I can understand why you guys want it to go away.

The sooner we (users and developers) get to move away from any particular proprietary, dog-slow, bug-riddled, sole-vendor component in favor of open standards with several competing implementations that are actively vying for better performance and feature parity, the better we'll all be.

That goes for just about any entrenched proprietary tech, not just Flash. Flash just happens to be the poster child of what epitomizes "bad" tech for the web.

That said, no, I don't see Flash vanishing any time soon, just like Internet Explorer isn't going away completely. However, I do hope and expect to see its use greatly reduced in scope, again like the slowly declining IE user base. Video, audio, and simple "flashy" animations (typical abuse being in things like menus, buttons, etc.) that have depended on Flash will continue phasing out in favor of HTML5, CSS, and the popular JavaScript libraries like jQuery. I'm sure most games and "apps" will live on in Flash for some time to come.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Partial 3. Ease of development. It has a java like syntax and strongly typed objects. Using the amf communication discussed above, I can send strongly typed objects over the wire and receive an object automatically mapped to the strongly typed client class. In addition to this, the semantics and syntax are very similar to java.

Flash ActionScript is an implementation of ECMAscript, just like JavaScript is. It isn't any more or less "similar to Java" than JavaScript than… JavaScript.

5. Possible performance improvement. I don't know if this is true, but I've heard that since a SWF is ultimately byte code it executes far faster than javascript, which is interpreted. I personally did not believe this to be the case until I heard it from a senior architect, so I'm not sure about it.

WebKit's SquirrelFish Extreme/Nitro uses byte code as well.

And Gecko's TraceMonkey does, too, thanks to code contributed by Adobe from Flash.

That said, those are just a few reasons from a flex/java developer. As a developer I love it. It's easy to use, the documentation is great, it's a beautiful language with the strongly typed objects compared to the (very limited) javascript I've seen. The rates are high. Life is good with flex. As a user, I can understand why you guys want it to go away.

I think you've given exactly one valid reason, which is that Flex is a good IDE.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana I'm no webbie. What's so great about HTML5? Flash support builtin?

Ha!

HTML5 is basically an evolution of HTML 4 and XHTML that implements features that actual web developers want, not just things that seem to have been decided on by committee. Of those features, two stand out and have been making news and controversy. Those are the <video> and <audio> tag (but mostly just the former). These tags act just like the <img> tag, allowing a developer to simply embed an audio or video file in a webpage without having to specify a bunch of plugin-specific attributes or encapsulate it with a Flash container. Since Flash's uses surged wildly with the rise of video sharing sites like YouTube, the hope and expectation of many is that native use of the <video> tag will result in less reliance on Flash for the job.

The biggest controversy, however, stems from the choice of codecs that browser vendors are supporting for the <video> tag. With the <img> tag, browser vendors have settled on a pretty standard selection of supported formats: GIF, JPEG, and PNG. With the <video> tag, however, Apple wants to support MPEG-4's H.264 but Mozilla/Firefox wants to support Ogg Theora. H.264 offers superior performance and hardware decoding, but it's patented and requires licensing. Ogg Theora is "free software", but its performance lags compared to H.264 and may fall victim to "submarine patents" and lawsuits once it catches on. Google wants to support both, but it wants to use H.264 for YouTube because of the performance benefit.

HTML5 also formally adds support for the <canvas> tag that Apple created a few years ago when it started using WebKit in parts of the OS like Dashboard. This tag is basically what it sounds like, giving a drawable region for JavaScript. This element hasn't been making the news like <video> has, but it's one of the other big changes with HTML5 that could help unseat Flash's reign of terror.

[Kraetos]

The problem with replacing Flash with HTML5 and other modern technologies is threefold.

First, there are the hundreds of millions of is IE users out there (not just IE6, but IE, period) who wont have a browser that can handle HTML5 any time soon unless they download one themselves. IE8 doesn't support either of the two most relevant Flash-killing attributes of HTML5, <video> and <canvas>, and probably wont for some time. So for the majority of web users, Flash is the only option for rich internet applications and video.

Then there's the codec debate. Firefox and Opera support Ogg Theora. Safari supports H.264. Chrome supports both. IE supports neither (partially because they want you to use Silverlight). H.264 is a better codec but you have to pay MPEG LA licensing fees to use it, which Mozilla and Opera aren't too keen on.

(Sidenote: I often dream of a world where the masses use not IE, not Firefox, but Chrome. Wouldn't that be grand?)

Finally there's the lack of an IDE. HTML5/CSS/(insert JS framework here) has no Flex equivalent. I don't know much about Flex but I have heard the argument made that Flash/Flex development is easier, especially for large companies.

That said, I hate Flash as much as the next guy, but HTML5 has serious obstacles to overcome before it can pose a threat to Flash, and just like practically everything else about the web, Internet Exploder is the primary one.

[EDIT] What Brad said. And while I'm here, what Ars Technica said.

[Banana]

One more question. I vaguely recall a remark made here a while ago claiming that there were no browser that was totally HTML4 complaint and in fact some are still stuck on HTML2 or something like that in order to support a wide audience (probably IE6). Will this remain the case with HTML5 or was it just a case of HTML4 being relatively uninteresting?

[Partial]

What are the big changes in html5?

What is this canvas element?

Other than video and audio elements, what else is built in? In theory I could point to a .ogg file using an <audio>/test.ogg</audio> and it will render the browser player automagically?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Banana One more question. I vaguely recall a remark made here a while ago claiming that there were no browser that was totally HTML4 complaint

That is correct. No popular layout engine fully implements HTML 4, a standard from 1997.

and in fact some are still stuck on HTML2 or something like that

That, not so much.

in order to support a wide audience (probably IE6). Will this remain the case with HTML5 or was it just a case of HTML4 being relatively uninteresting?

Sort of — some parts of HTML 4 are just not interesting/pragmatic enough; others are difficult to implement while maintaining compatibility with other engines.

Originally Posted by Partial What are the big changes in html5? What is this canvas element?

A canvas. I.e., a drawing surface for authors to freely edit using very simple commands.

Other than video and audio elements, what else is built in?

Some pre-existing but formalized concepts, like AJAX, drag & drop and editing. Some entirely new stuff, like storage (a per-site SQL database in your browser). New form controls, like a progress bar.

In theory I could point to a .ogg file using an <audio>/test.ogg</audio> and it will render the browser player automagically?

Yes.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Partial What is this canvas element?

Lets you draw stuff with JavaScript.

You can see some cool canvas demos if you Google for them.

[Banana]

Thanks, chucker.

Will be interesting to see if there's a higher adoption of the HTML5 standard.

Like SQL standard, it's anything but a standard.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Ars from Kraetos' link Patent encumbrance is one of the driving forces behind the HTML 5 video codec controversy. The patent licensing requirements mean that H.264 codecs can't be freely redistributed, making the format a non-starter for Mozilla and most other open source browser vendors. Opera also objects, saying that the licensing fees are too high. Mozilla and Opera strongly advocate Ogg Theora as an alternative because its freedom from known patents could ensure that there are no licensing barriers that prevent ubiquitous adoption.

Okay, reasonable.

Apple objects to Ogg Theora, claiming that the lack of known patents on Theora doesn't rule out the threat of submarine patents that could eventually be used against adopters. Apple is also concerned about the lack of widespread support for hardware-based Theora decoding, a factor that diminishes the format's viability on mobile devices. Google shares Apple's skepticism about the potential of Theora in the marketplace. The search giant claims that Theora's lack of quality relative to H.264 will make it an impractical choice for large-scale streaming video services such as YouTube.

I'm inclined to think this is kind of bogus, and would be a good case to bring to court and establish a precedent to shoot down submarine patents. I mean, if everyone commits to it, then any patent suits would have to reckon with Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Opera, surely?

Obtaining a license for H.264 from MPEG LA doesn't guarantee complete immunity from patent infringement liability, though.

Uh, then why are we paying license again?

Although it is generally assumed that MPEG LA controls all of the relevant intellectual property pertaining to H.264 implementations, there is still the possibility that a third-party which is not a member of the consortium has a broad patent covering related compression technology that it can independently enforce against MPEG LA licensees.

So it's a sham, merely a scheme to make money off something of dubious value?

Although Theora is not known to infringe any patents, critics fear that enhancing it to make it competitive with the most modern and efficient codecs will greatly increase its exposure to infringement risks. Some critics even contend that it's not possible to advance Theora without inevitably hitting a patent wall.

If that's the case, then I think it's a clear sign that patent law is seriously fucked. So fucked that the head is so far up the asshole, a kelvin's bottle is formed.

I'm sorry, but there's something seriously with the whole picture.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by chucker Flash ActionScript is an implementation of ECMAscript, just like JavaScript is. It isn't any more or less "similar to Java" than JavaScript than… JavaScript.

I agree, but are there strongly typed objects in javascript? As far as I know, no. I could be wrong, though. It's really a pleasure to develop in.

WebKit's SquirrelFish Extreme/Nitro uses byte code as well. And Gecko's TraceMonkey does, too, thanks to code contributed by Adobe from Flash.

What does this mean to a developer? Can we still use popular libraries like JQuery or are we starting from scratch, or how does this work?

Please explain this as I don't understand.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by chucker Some pre-existing but formalized concepts, like AJAX, drag & drop and editing. Some entirely new stuff, like storage (a per-site SQL database in your browser). New form controls, like a progress bar.

Are we (as a community) still using AJAX only with XML or we just referring to it for any asynchronous communication? I've got to imagine that JSON is going to overtake XML for the means of communication as it's lighter weight.

That said, how can they build AJAX and d&d in when those are scripting features? Knowing that they're going to be capable of doing some of these things with simple mark-up is blowing my mind.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Partial I agree, but are there strongly typed objects in javascript? As far as I know, no. I could be wrong, though. It's really a pleasure to develop in.

You're right, my mistake. ActionScript is strongly-typed; JavaScript is weakly-typed.

What does this mean to a developer? Can we still use popular libraries like JQuery or are we starting from scratch, or how does this work? Please explain this as I don't understand.

I was just responding to whether JavaScript is interpreted. The two most popular modern engines, Gecko (Firefox, Camino, etc.) and WebKit (Safari, Chrome, etc.) both use bytecode now. No rewrite needed.

Originally Posted by Partial Are we (as a community) still using AJAX only with XML or we just referring to it for any asynchronous communication?

The "XML" part in "XmlHttpRequest" is a bit of a misnomer, as there's actually nothing XML-specific in that technique at all. There are historic reasons for the name (XHR was originally created by Microsoft to asynchronously load data from Exchange Server to Outlook Web Access).

Despite the name, AJAX is frequently used without XML, such as with JSON instead.

I've got to imagine that JSON is going to overtake XML for the means of communication as it's lighter weight.

Yep. Especially since JSON, being JavaScript's native model, is so easy to [de]serialize in JS.

That said, how can they build AJAX and d&d in when those are scripting features? Knowing that they're going to be capable of doing some of these things with simple mark-up is blowing my mind.

Actually (and confusingly), HTML5 refers to much more than a markup language. So no, neither AJAX nor D&D are actually built into the markup (nor do I believe they ought to belong there). HTML5 essentially formalizes many ideas that have been coming up on the Web over the past decade, regardless of where they belong.

[Partial]

I agree they don't necessarily belong in the markup. This has been a very informative discussion.

How does the js get converted into bytecode with the newer engines? I'm confused. Doesn't it have to be compiled into bytecode?

The confusion with the whole actionscript compiled to bytecode thing was that I'm pretty sure I've un-swf'd a swf (think unrar or unzip) and saw .as files in there. I always interpreted the execution going like this:

As the swf was loaded, it decompresses, and the .as files executed in the player, which serves as sort of a wrapper interpreting the .as and executing the ECMAScript. Not sure if this is close to on base though, as what the arch. told me threw me for a loop.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Partial How does the js get converted into bytecode with the newer engines? I'm confused. Doesn't it have to be compiled into bytecode?

Nitro and TraceMonkey do exactly that: (lazily) compile to optimized bytecode. Older JS engines (and probably IE) are just syntax tree walkers.

Introducing SquirrelFish Nitro

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Kraetos First, there are the hundreds of millions of is IE users out there (not just IE6, but IE, period) who wont have a browser that can handle HTML5 any time soon unless they download one themselves. IE8 doesn't support either of the two most relevant Flash-killing attributes of HTML5, <video> and <canvas>, and probably wont for some time. So for the majority of web users, Flash is the only option for rich internet applications and video.

Hopefully Google Chrome Frame will alleviate this problem a bit. Developers won't really be able to chuck in bits and pieces of HTML5 here and there and expect all browsers to be able to read them, but any serious HTML5 application such as YouTube, etc. could prompt users to install the GCF plugin. I imagine YouTube won't force GFC upon IE users at first, but possibly for new or advanced features (i.e. to view in HQ). It's not a perfect solution by any means, but it should allow HTML5 development to proliferate to the point where IE can't afford to ignore it any longer.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Partial How does the js get converted into bytecode with the newer engines? I'm confused. Doesn't it have to be compiled into bytecode? The confusion with the whole actionscript compiled to bytecode thing was that I'm pretty sure I've un-swf'd a swf (think unrar or unzip) and saw .as files in there. I always interpreted the execution going like this: As the swf was loaded, it decompresses, and the .as files executed in the player, which serves as sort of a wrapper interpreting the .as and executing the ECMAScript. Not sure if this is close to on base though, as what the arch. told me threw me for a loop.

Ah, I see your confusion. No, the engines don't download bytecode. They download the script, then compile that into bytecode, then execute it. That's several times faster than interpreting it.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana ...then any patent suits would have to reckon with Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Opera, surely?

The patent situation in the US is so far fucked up that it's more likely that Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Opera would end up paying millions of dollars either in legal costs or in paying the licensee should a suit arise.

Originally Posted by Banana So it's a sham, merely a scheme to make money off something of dubious value?

Again, this is just a matter of the US patent system being fucked up, not that MPEG LA is a sham.

Originally Posted by Banana If that's the case, then I think it's a clear sign that patent law is seriously fucked. So fucked that the head is so far up the asshole, a kelvin's bottle is formed.

Uh, duh?

[MBHockey]

Originally Posted by Brad The patent situation in the US is so far fucked up that it's more likely that Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Opera would end up paying millions of dollars either in legal costs or in paying the licensee should a suit arise. Again, this is just a matter of the US patent system being fucked up, not that MPEG LA is a sham. Uh, duh?

Couldn't agree more. I worked at the USPTO for a year and I can tell you that the current patent system is 100% FUBAR. I really don't know if there's much that can be done at this point.