Even YouTube must continue to support Flash video for at least another year because many websites embedded Flash videos using YouTube's boilerplate embedding HTML with the Flash <object> tag. Google can't magically rewrite these third-party websites' HTML. :) Maybe YouTube can use some SWF that loads or redirects people to youtube.com? Or browsers could recognize YouTube's boilerplate embedding HTML and rewrite it with YouTube's HTML5 video.
Flash, while pretty atrocious, is part of the cultural legacy of the web.
Someday shumway may be the only way reasonable way to access this via archive.org etc.
Note that for a lot of content, it's not even required to use Shumway in the form of a browser extension or built-in system: it's perfectly possible to run SWFs with Shumway as a website-deployed player. E.g., the header on http://areweflashyet.com is deployed that way and works just fine in all modern browsers.
Browsers themselves don't need to do it. It could be a (very useful) browser extension or a user script.
I'm on a friends tablet now, but I'm looking forward to digging through the implementation later. Keep up the good work!
P.s.: Did you find parts of AS3 beautiful? :-)
In Shumway, we do almost all rendering in a Canvas element, so we haven't experimented all that much with DOM-heavy constructs.
As for your last question: I used to work with AS3 on a daily basis in a previous work-life, so I have extensive experience with it. Yes, there are some parts of the language that're very nice. I think that optional static typing is the best of all worlds, for example. The details of AS3's type system leave much to be desired, but the IDE support gained through static typing and the large set of bugs that're far easier to avoid are easily worth it.
Also, declarative classes are, in my opinion much easier to deal with than, e.g., the unstructured alternatives in JS. That's part of why we moved to TypeScript, and I'd argue that it vastly improved the quality of our codebase. I'm very much looking forward to classes in ES6.
Of course there are things that I don't miss about AS3 and regret having to deal with in Shumway. Namespaces are one, E4X the other. Both are good concepts in theory but hugely problematic in practice because of issues in the details.
That's not a portmanteau though is it? I thought a that was when you joined two words, eg hungry + angry = hangry. Maybe portmanteau has different variations that I'm unaware of - though I know I probably just sound like a pedant.
I'd be highly surprised if it were a new software naming method, it's definitely not a new thing of itself.
That is very cool, if so.
If so, is it possible to use UDP over shumway?
AFAIK, Shumway does not support UDP sockets, but, as a Firefox extension, it could access Gecko XPCOM APIs that are not available to JS on the web.
>Shumway needs H.264 video decoders that may not be available on Windows XP or Linux.
Is that a reason for Linux users to be annoyed, or just something that happened and will be corrected soon?
EDIT: It looks like Linux support shipped in FF26 as long as GStreamer supports it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282#c101
Windows XP is still left out – they use DirectShow for MP3 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=861693) but using it for H.264 would require a licensed plugin which few people have and while OpenH.264 is available, it doesn't support the Main & High profiles used for most video on the web (it's been focused on streaming): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799318#c57
ffdshow has been able to play H.264 and a bunch of other codecs for a long time, and a not-insignificant number of users probably have that or some other codec that can...
Also, that wouldn't change anything about the current situation: we still can't rely on users having the right codecs installed. We're not saying that Linux and Windows XP won't be supported going forward. They most definitely will. As part of this first small step towards deployment, we opted for a conservative approach where we only enable Shumway in situations we have the maximum amount of control over. This will be broadened over time.
What would be required in order to get Shumway to actually play video from PIV (instead of Amazon simply demanding that the user installs Flash or Silverlight)?
What's the easiest way to test shumway on arbitrary files? I'm running the latest nightly, but the amazon videos still use flash (tested by checking the right click menu). I've tried the extension in the past, but it never seemed to do anything.
Also, it would be nice if there was, say, a table of common flash APIs coloured by implementation status, for easy tracking of shumway completeness.
There are two easy ways to test Shumway on all SWF files: if you don't want to use Firefox Nightly, you can just install the extension from http://areweflashyet.com/ and should be all set. If you're using Firefox Nightly, you can simply visit about:config and change the shumway.swf.whitelist setting to "*". Note that you still need to have the Flash plugin installed for most sites to work, as I explained in another comment a few minutes ago.
Regarding the table of supported APIs: the problem with that is that we actually have most APIs implemented, but have compatibility bugs in some of them which break content. If we could easily list the broken APIs, then in most cases we could just as easily fix them. That said, there are some major API areas we don't yet support. Those are mostly related to newer and thus less-used capabilities, such as Flash's version of WebGL, called Stage3D, and a new text layout system called Text Layout Engine.
I'm guessing that lightspark must already have some tests, and from your side there are probably some they could use too ?
You can try Shumway in other browsers without the extension at the project website:
The SpiderMonkey team's "Are We Fast Yet?" website also includes some AS3 benchmarks running in Shumway on Firefox, Chrome, and Safari: