[rob74]

I agree with the "not nearly as easy" part as long as you are limited to the usual HTML/CSS/JS stack. I think WebAssembly has a lot of promise here, as you can theoretically do anything you want in any language of your choice and have it run in the browser. Of course, this is also a threat to the "open web" where you are free to use your browser's DevTools to dissect the internals of any site.

[graderjs]

I got some Flash applications[0] working in the Pro version of my remote, isolated iframe-embeddable multiplayer web browser[1] using Ruffle[2].

I use CRDP (chrome remote debugging protocol)[3] to run Ruffle on pages that need it (sort of like a Chrome extension content script). Ruffle itself uses wasm and is quite fast.

It's cool seeing the audio and video work and playing those old games.

-

[0]: https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/wiki/Test-SWFs

[1]: https://github.com/crisdosyago/BrowserBox#bb-pro-vs-regular-...

[2]: https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle

[3]: https://chromedevtools.github.io/devtools-protocol/tot/

[tsukikage]

The tooling is the main issue here, and that's even worse for webassembly than the usual HTML/CSS/JS stack.

[rendall]

This is the thing. ActionScript had a phenomenal API for each media asset.