Ouch! Flash is on its way out.

[jAQUAN]

^ Nailed it. I just made this realization yesterday. I suddenly dawned on me that the vitriol spewed by html devs likely stems from the fact that they've lost a contract or two due to a lack of ability to write as3.

On a related note, the most confusing argument is that flash crashes a lot and somehow crashes more often these days. I don't spend much time researching flash experiences across the web but I do see a lot and I just don't experience this crashiness. I follow some great devs on twitter who post links to their edge case experiments and they're pretty damn stable.

My office is researching a holy grail approach to javascript atm. From a developer stand point its kind of an enjoyable search for a solution. It's what we do. But from a effort vs. payoff perspective, this is f*cking insane! I will say that javascript is a bit like free style kung-fu. The only structure comes from technique. This is appealing until you realize its like having mad rubix cube or pen twirling skills. No body f*cking cares.

[s3an]

It's only a matter of time before the HTML5 canvas replaces the Flash stage. There are already programs out there on the market which are basically replica's of the first versions of Flash. They'll only get better over time...

For example, http://tumultco.com/hype/

[cancerinform]

It's only a matter of time before the HTML5 canvas replaces the Flash stage. There are already programs out there on the market which are basically replica's of the first versions of Flash. They'll only get better over time...

For example, http://tumultco.com/hype/

I want to see solid programming using design patterns and frameworks with HTML5 and Javascript as it is possible with Flash and Flex. Until then Flash and Flex won't disappear and it's enough time for Flash/Flex developers to dive into HTML5 and application development.

[jAQUAN]

That's the problem with these IDE's so far. Adobe Edge has the makings to be a seriously good app but in the end, there's no runtime to compile for. They're are all just code generators and real programmers hate that. Debugging is a nightmare and god forbid you want to add a feature.

Straight OOP will never be a smart thing to do in javascript. It simply doesn't work that way. I'm reading "The Good Parts" by Douglas Crockford right now and it has some very good coping mechanisms like closures and modules but lets face it, they're really just f*cking hacks.

[jAQUAN]

It's only a matter of time before the HTML5 canvas replaces the Flash stage. There are already programs out there on the market which are basically replica's of the first versions of Flash. They'll only get better over time...

For example, http://tumultco.com/hype/

That's probably true, but it going to be a long f*cking time until it does. The flash stage accounts for only a portion of what makes it a killer platform. There's sound channels, sockets, DRM playback, text... ok text in flash is a joke, code privacy, and a ton of other awesomeness built up over the last 10 years. In the mean time clients are going to expect to pay the same price for content that's much harder to build.

[gerbick]

Until I see an IDE that's worth a damn... HTML5 isn't an answer for much anything. And I refuse to go back to the days of coding everything in Coda or Notepad. I already do that for PHP. Not gonna do that for HTML5 Canvas too. Timeline + IDE = happy mofo.

It ain't happened yet.

[jAQUAN]

Aptana3 is not a bad code editor in that it's code completion supports css3 and html5. Still no design mode a la Edge. It will happen but unless it comes with custom js sugar I'm never going to feel like I'm doing the right thing.

[Frets]

I ought to make a sticky out of this thread. Seems the only discussion which always returns members.

[loydall]

I haven't touched flash in years (well maybe other than deploying a few videos).

More to the point - I can't remember the last time I used a proper flash based website - or even a website with heavy use of smaller flash files (again, other than video sites).

I don't think HTML5 is the flash killer, the way the web has evolved has just required less use of flash - most people use the web to buy stuff, look at stuff and talk about stuff - none of that requires flash.

However - the experience can be enhanced with modern browser features - css3, hml5, latest javascript support/libraries etc..

I've just a built a new site and we've quite heavily used new css3/html features and I can really see the benefit - we've also taken into account users with older browsers of course - they can still use the site.

There wasn't a single instance where we thought we need flash..

Flash still has its place of course but the days of animated flash menus are over.. thank god.

[nizamm]

Frankly, I would sell an iPad to browse something like this -
http://www.rexonaformen.com.mx

[david petley]

HTML5 promises to be a good tool ...just not for the stuff that flash does very well.

[Frets]

html5 will fall prey to the same failures of html1,2,3 only moreso.

Not that I like the WC3 but atleast it was/is a governing body that issues standards and practices to html. Even with that there were and are still inconsistencies in how it is implemented cross browser. The WC3 has stated that html5 is still a proposition. No clear rules have been carved in stone. It's only a draft
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/

Considering that browser vendors applied their own standards to previous incarnations and they are less bound to observe future standards it will mean more not less compatiblity issues. Not only with browsers but with operating systems in general. As html5 is becoming a part of the programming language lexicon.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...-horrified.ars

Like it or not. Both users and programmers are going to have a very very rough go with Windows 8 as older software may not be compatible with it. That new program that you just bought today and love may not survive windows 8. Software vendors may not be able to honor older license agreements with the new OS. Which means for the consumer everything you currently have licensed for will be out the window. It also means software developers will be working triple time to reproduce the products they already sell in an html5 compatible format. Less features for more money.

[nizamm]

YEEA!!1

GO FRETS GO!

You're da maan!!

Let's take this HTML **** doowwn!!

Who's with me!?!?

[toonRaider]

html5 will fall prey to the same failures of html1,2,3 only moreso.... Less features for more money.

Absolutely right, but will customers just accept it! IMO this is one of the forks in the road. We live in a very different world from the one we have been used to for many years.

The difference between user demands and what is delivered by HTML5 and its bandwagon will leave room for something entirely different to come out of left field and change the game.

Paul

[david petley]

html5 will fall prey to the same failures of html1,2,3 only moreso.

I don't think I agree. For a start, unlike previous verions of HTML, version 5 is meant to be completely backward compatible. This was not the case for earlier versions. I think this time they might be closer to getting it right.

Even with that there were and are still inconsistencies in how it is implemented cross browser. The WC3 has stated that html5 is still a proposition. No clear rules have been carved in stone. It's only a draft
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/

I feel confident most of the browser application developers will work towards more consistent support for all HTML5 features once they are finalised ( as you said, HTML5 is still just a work in progress - until early to mid 2012 I think).

Considering that browser vendors applied their own standards to previous incarnations and they are less bound to observe future standards it will mean more not less compatiblity issues.

...possibly, but there already seems to be more consistent support for HTML5 in all browsers than with previous versions. Maybe it will go in the other direction, and there will be fewer compatibility issues.

david

[david petley]

Like it or not. Both users and programmers are going to have a very very rough go with Windows 8 as older software may not be compatible with it. That new program that you just bought today and love may not survive windows 8. Software vendors may not be able to honor older license agreements with the new OS. Which means for the consumer everything you currently have licensed for will be out the window. It also means software developers will be working triple time to reproduce the products they already sell in an html5 compatible format. Less features for more money.

I think there will be a tablet version of Windows 8 using ARM architecture and a PC version of Windows 8 using x86 architecture. Just like there is the iOS for apple mobile devices and OSX for their desktop machines.

I like what one user said in this discussion -

This entire saga about "the inevitability of ARM on the desktop is the beginning of the end for x86" reminds me of other entertaining, whimsical, slightly daft fairy tales like "Intel is going to make GPUs obsolete with Larrabee," and it is most instructive in this case to take Intel's take on Windows 8. Intel dearly loves Windows 8, warts, ARM, and all.

What is it with the mindless "one size must fit all" lunacy that seems to fill so many heads? There is no reason on earth why ARM would ever be thought to usurp and replace x86--rather, ARM will continue to do as it has always done--to compliment x86 as opposed to replacing it, exactly in the sense of how mobile functionality currently compliments desktop functionality. It may very well be, too, that with the passage of time and the continuing expertise in FAB process reduction and escalating yields, that x86 ultimately renders most commercial (as opposed to industrial) uses of ARM entirely void of either substance or importance. Few people today care to think about that, which is an oddity in itself.

Who is it who also thinks, with such a one track mind, that "mobile" is for some strange reason going to usurp "desktop" as in "replace" the desktop? As long as people enjoy gorgeous monitors that are measured diagonally in feet as opposed to inches, spacious and tactile, hand-sized keyboards, pointing devices with incredible accuracy, sound capability that rivals that of movie theaters--and much more--how is "mobile" supposed to replace the market for that? It isn't, plain and simple. Mobile always has been and always will be an entirely separate market for so many good, solid reasons that it would take me weeks just to think of most of them and write them all down.

Not only that--but ARM in any iteration whatever is in no position to "rival full x86 desktop support." It's not even close enough to shout. If Intel with all its muscle and money couldn't pull x86 out of the desktop and move it to Itanium, who else is going to do it? As far as nVidia and its newer ARM processors go, I recall no announcement from nVidia stating that at any time in the future it foresaw its ARM business overtaking and replacing its x86 business. Just like was done so often and so erroneously with Larrabee, all of these things have been twisted so far out of context that they no longer even make sense.

What I have *always* imagined Win8's x86 ARM support would be is one GUI interface for tablets and other mobile devices as they develop, coexisting nicely with Microsoft's traditional x86 *Desktop* GUI. Yea, I mean, I certainly am not going to be happy with greasy fingerprints all over my "whopping" 1024x768 screen--just won't cut it--not even slightly interested. I think Microsoft has got it exactly right. There is a market for mobile and there is a market for desktop and no matter how it is sliced, mobile will never replace the desktop tomorrow, any more so than it has replaced it today.

Last, Intel isn't going anywhere--any notion to the contrary is absolute fantasy... (Where do these notions--like Larrabee--originate?) The world markets are far larger and far more complex than the very simple "ARM vs x86" or "mobile vs. desktop" scenarios people like to imagine, for some reason. Surely cross compatibility will come--but one market completely replacing the other? Nah--not gonna' happen.

[FlashLackey]

Flash still has its place of course but the days of animated flash menus are over.. thank god.

Except on web applications, which seem logically to become more wide-spread as people use mobile devices instead of desktop machines.

I don't think I agree. For a start, unlike previous verions of HTML, version 5 is meant to be completely backward compatible. This was not the case for earlier versions. I think this time they might be closer to getting it right.

Being meant to be backward compatible and actually implemented that way by browser developers who have zero obligation to do so are two different things.

I feel confident most of the browser application developers will work towards more consistent support for all HTML5 features once they are finalised ( as you said, HTML5 is still just a work in progress - until early to mid 2012 I think).

What has changed that makes you think HTML5 implementation will be any different than the poo-fest browser implementation has been to date?

...possibly, but there already seems to be more consistent support for HTML5 in all browsers than with previous versions. Maybe it will go in the other direction, and there will be fewer compatibility issues.

There is? That hasn't been our experience at all and we do a lot of each kind of development. Feature support for HTML5 in browsers is currently all over the place. Also, more and more people are using mobile devices to browse, making the variations of implementations that much worse. We've had to work directly with hardware manufacturers on changing low-level architecture just to get apps that they want installed on their own phones to work.

The whole mess is laid out well here: http://html5test.com/results.html

[david petley]

Except on web applications, which seem logically to become more wide-spread as people use mobile devices instead of desktop machines.

How many mobile device users you know who use their tablets or phones for anything but media, texts, phone calls and information-only applications? I do not see that anything based on the ARM processors will ever be suitable for anything more, but I might be wrong (anything is possible). I know it will take a really, really great tablet to outperform and run my software applications with the same ease my x86 desktop machine does.

Being meant to be backward compatible and actually implemented that way by browser developers who have zero obligation to do so are two different things.

yes, I agree. I was responding to the automatic assumption that "html5 will fall prey to the same failures of html1,2,3 only moreso".

I am assuming the opposite, and will wait and see the outcome before calling doom and gloom. At the least, I don't think it will be worse than the current situation in terms of support for standards and I think it will be better.

The webkit, gecko and presto engines are all doing OK with html5 support right now. IE9 and IE10 (trident) are doing less well. None of them seem to care about the Element specific attributes laid out in the spec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...engines_(HTML5).

[FlashLackey]

How many mobile device users you know who use their tablets or phones for anything but media, texts, phone calls and information-only applications? I do not see that anything based on the ARM processors will ever be suitable for anything more, but I might be wrong (anything is possible). I know it will take a really, really great tablet to outperform and run my software applications with the same ease my x86 desktop machine does.

This may just be a difference in our anecdotal experience. Most people I've known and seen are using these devices for games and other apps with non-html like UIs. We have 2 ipads at our house that are loaded with 95% games, photo editing apps, etc.

I am assuming the opposite, and will wait and see the outcome before calling doom and gloom. At the least, I don't think it will be worse than the current situation in terms of support for standards and I think it will be better.

I guess I just don't understand what the basis is for assuming the opposite. We have over 10 years of experiencing the status quo. It's the same companies in the same process. So, why should we expect anything different?

The webkit, gecko and presto engines are all doing OK with html5 support right now. IE9 and IE10 (trident) are doing less well. None of them seem to care about the Element specific attributes laid out in the spec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...engines_(HTML5).

No platform has all features. Even when features are shared, they are sometimes implemented differently, requiring multi-browser hacks and painful troubleshooting. Support is lacking in many browsers for many of the most important features (video, audio).

And remember, the flaw in this entire concept of relying on browsers to implement a standard is that only one browser needs to be different in order to create more work or prevent something from working. Clients see a project not working in one browser as a "bug" that has to be fixed. So, every browser in the world could be perfect, but if a feature doesn't work in IE 8, clients just aren't going to let it go. Standards based programming relies on all browsers to work the same in unison. One works differently and a massive amount of additional work has been created (and wasted imo) across the world of development.

This is a fundamental flaw in the standards-based concept that will not go away with HTML5.

[Frets]

And remember, the flaw in this entire concept of relying on browsers to implement a standard is that only one browser needs to be different in order to create more work or prevent something from working

I agree, building browsers isn't easy. You want yours to be better then the others and you want to do it on the cheap because no one pays for a browser. Sometimes harsh bugs results and the developer has to make choices between the lesser of two evils.
As the saying goes. The software isn't done till the user is dead.