File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)04:12:36 No.3321312
>> [_] Sammy 03/09/18(Fri)08:38:57 No.3321352
>>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.3321368
>>3321352
Yes.
The author probably still prefers .gifs and .bmp, as well.
>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)09:50:43 No.3321369
>>3321352
no it's not, layman
>>3321368
those are irrelevant
>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)11:29:43 No.3321382
>>3321352
hi a layman, i'm nigger
>> [_] Anonymous 03/09/18(Fri)11:44:30 No.3321385
>>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.3321398
>>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.3321403
>>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.3321408
>>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.3321420
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.
