Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #30355
| From | Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| Subject | Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> |
| Date | 2016-04-26 23:26 -0300 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nfp7q9$4n0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <6b082034-9529-4697-874f-605626dfedef@googlegroups.com> <6ba8752a-d2ee-434d-9b15-8a31bcd118ea@googlegroups.com> <nfmnud$k5n$1@dont-email.me> |
On 26/04/16 00:42, Teodor V. wrote: > On 2016-04-26 04:44, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: >> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:07:21 PM UTC-5, bit-n...@hotmail.com wrote: >>> How well do they stack up against each other? I have only a rudimentary knowledge of the <canvas> tag, but I've seen Flash sites, which, for example, had a "mini OS" _within the page_ - ie. boxes you could drag around the screen, maybe a "calculator" app within the thing, i.e. you click on a calculator icon, and it pops it up _inside the page_, AFAIR, undistinguishable from a normal desktop calculator.... >> >> You can't compare Flash development and Canvas. You have to compare Flash development with Web development in general. Flash is irrelevant now as all of its functionality can be created or emulated in a standards compliant way in modern browsers. >> >> Here is a cutesy example: >> >> <http://www.windows93.net/> >> >> and here is a more serious example: >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTJRwKOFddc> >> >> >>> Moreover, why does everyone want Flash to die? I personally think there will *always* be room for something that lets people create multimedia _without touching raw code_ ,ie. you create animation by *drawing*, inside a *creator program*, like you do in Flash. This is just more *human*, and will always fulfill a need.... >> >> Flash is subsumed by the web. If you want it so bad, there are ways to still get it either though the now abandoned Shumway: >> >> <https://mozilla.github.io/shumway/> >> >> or through a different compilation step such as one of those listed on the following page: >> >> <https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS> > > I could understand it when Flash was still noticeably faster than > javascript, but not anymore, as you can do things faster in javascript > than in Flash these days. More than speed I'd say it was due to a lack of features and lack of standardization on important ones. > I suspect it's either people who write Flash apps who either lack proper > motivation to learn javascript or want to obfuscate what their code does. I don't think obfuscating is an issue with Javascript. > Just my $.02. > > /Teo.
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Comparison between Flash and <canvas> bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-04-25 12:07 -0700
Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:53 +1000
Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-04-27 11:09 -0700
Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2016-04-25 19:44 -0700
Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> "Teodor V." <teodor-see-signature@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:42 +0200
Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> "Teodor V." <teodor-see-signature@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:44 +0200
Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-04-26 23:26 -0300
Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2016-04-27 11:07 -0700
Re: Comparison between Flash and <canvas> "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2016-04-27 17:34 -0700
csiph-web