File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)04:12:36 No.

>> [_] Sammy 03/09/18(Fri)08:38:57 No.

  >>3321312
  >flash fucking HTML5

  Call me a layman, but isn't it the other way round?

>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)09:44:09 No.

  >>3321352
  Yes.

  The author probably still prefers .gifs and .bmp, as well.

>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)09:50:43 No.

  >>3321352
  no it's not, layman
  >>3321368
  those are irrelevant

>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)11:29:43 No.

  >>3321352
  hi a layman, i'm nigger

>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)11:44:30 No.

  >>3321352
  It is. The problem with that is that there are no flash-like HTML5 authoring tools for dumbfucks,
  so most of the low-tier flash creator community dies with flash.

  >video
  swf was never intended to be video container format. HTML5 video can do webm and literally
  anything else.

  >scripts
  Anything you can do in as3 you can do faster with modern js engines.

  >graphics
  There's no direct replacement for flash-like vector animations, but HTML5 canvas can do
  performant webgl (read: opengl) graphics unlike shitty software rendered flash.

>> [_] !Wulf.Eb.mY 03/09/18(Fri)13:51:58 No.

  >>3321385
  >so most of the low-tier flash creator community dies with flash
  That's not even true, they export into MP4 which degrades the quality of the flash for increased
  file size and becoming "modern".

  >HTML5 video can do webm and literally anything else
  Except later rebuked with your own statement of:
  >There's no direct replacement for flash-like vector animations

  >HTML5 canvas can do performant webgl (read: opengl) graphics
  Except as stated earlier:
  >no flash-like HTML5 authoring tools
  No one will touch it because even Google won't create user-friendly tools for the shit they're
  shoveling.

  You're also missing these points:
  1. SWF is an archived animation, so it's all transferred easily between peers in a single file
  and requires no effort to host. VS Canvas (the direct competitor to flash) is an html file with a
  separate folder containing any assets you used (songs, images, etc.) which is more tedious to
  share and host.
  2. SWFs are sandboxed but still has a couple security risks. VS JS is not sandboxed and is now
  the most commonly used method to abuse users and with security risks up the ass.

>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)14:12:21 No.

  >>3321352
  public opinion is that "html 5 is better" but nah, flash really fucks the shit out of html 5. but
  this is the future the powers that be have chosen.

>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)14:26:06 No.

  >>3321398
  >That's not even true, they export into MP4
  You can't export interactive content into video. Anyone producing "flash" content that befits a
  video format is dead to me. The visual style adobe/macromedia established with their vector
  animation stuff is distinct, but flash is nothing without interactivity.

  >Except later rebuked with your own statement of
  Don't take things out of context if you want to be taken seriously, tripfag. Vector animations
  have jack shit to do with video format capabilities. That said, SVG also offers some interesting
  possibilities for vector animations but browser support is still sketchy. I reckon any "flash
  replacement" would be a js library for canvas stuff - and gui editor to get the flash babbies
  back on the train.

  Counter-points:
  1. It's possible to embed any kind of file into a single HTML file, with either base64 data uris
  or js blobs. Trivvial to do so programmatically, adding such a feature into any "flash
  replacement" software would be minimal work. And while this is not directly related to the "muh
  container" argument, many SWFs also load external content, so nothing new there.
  2. What? Running JS inside your browser is far safer than shitty swf plugins ever were. Literally
  the entire internet runs on the same technology, it's uncountable orders of magnitude more mature
  than a niche platform like flash was.

  If there was will, the flash community could already have established promising projects for
  html5 flash-like authoring tools. Big flash portals could have already done the groundwork for
  hosting relatively freeform html5 replacements. But there is no will. Most flash creators are
  incompetents using whatever babbymode tool they can wrap their head around, so they're now
  jumping ship into unity (fucking lol) and flash portals are just encouraging that, if not
  encouraging exporting their shit animations to straight to video and forgoing any interactivity.

>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)14:47:38 No.

  Also. The way I see this, the impending death of flash will divide the userbases into two very
  distinct groups.

  1. The majority of flash creators: The kids and amateurs who just want to make funny animations,
  garbage-tier porn games or whatever using with whichever simple tool is at hand. They will move
  onto unity webgl or videos or whatever the big flash portals push for. They might carry the
  "spirit" of flash style with them. At least the ease of creation / accessibility and subsequent
  shovelware quality will follow this group.

  2. The minority of professionals (be it web designer, indie game programmer, js code monkey or
  whatever) with a side interest on the quirky little thing that is swf. They will continue to
  share cool HTML5+JS snippets on sites like jsdo.it and shadertoy. The macromedia/adobe style is
  dead to them.

  Neither is a proper replacement for flash. I'm worried about what will become of /f/ and swfchan
  once mainstream browsers finally drop swf plugin support.