While I do agree that you need to be flexible with your knowledge of tools, I do have an issue.
People act as if flash is being abandoned. Its not. Mobile Flash is. Several new smart-phones and tablets nowadays use browsers with REAL FLASH on it, so there is no need to continue development on mobile flash. That's all that happened. No big win for anyone.
Adobe has been focusing on html5, as have the rest of the web, and imho, Adobe has some great tools to author content in html5 already.
But don't you get the feeling this is the beginning of the end?
Obviously Adobe aren't going to abandon desktop or 'real' Flash without a viable alternative Adobe offer. After all plenty of industries are still highly dependent on Flash. Especially mine (online advertising). But my feeling is Adobe are developing a Flash author that outputs js/canvas seamlessly alongside a swf. Once we're all comfortable with that idea, then they abandon 'real' Flash.
The thing that strikes me about all this "flash is dead" talk is that HTML 5 really isn't a sufficient replacement for Flash. It's not even close. I suspect people who say this haven't used either technology seriously, because I can do things in flash that are an order of a magnitude more performant -- and flash isn't even that good. (For the record, I greatly dislike most of flash. It's pretty much shocking that they've just now gotten around to supporting hardware graphics acceleration in a half decent manner.)
HTML 5 is a nice small step; but that's all it is, a SMALL step. If you want to kill flash (which you should), we need something better than this.
Millions of people enjoy their iOS devices without a trace of Flash. For them Flash _is_ already dead.
I am not sure what you can do in Flash that is order of magnitude more performant, but I am pretty sure, that even if that's true I don't care—because this is most likely some very perfomant stuff I have no interest in.
Flash performance varies significantly by platform. It is miserable on all mobile devices and banned on the tablet market leader's devices.
Given the fact that mobile is gropwing so fast and is pretty clearly a huge part of computing in the future, it's ridiculous to suggest Flash seriously out performs HTML5 in this most important area.
Flash is ubiquitous in animation-focused tracks. While lower-level tools are necessary for studio-quality productions, I still don't know anything that even comes close to flash for prototypes and low to mid-level animation work.
If Flash dies, what will people use to prototype? It's used in UX testing everywhere I've looked. It's invaluable for quickly creating animated interactive prototypes. Flash is not just obnoxious websites and banner ads.
IMO Flash is a great tool to develop a familiarity with certain useful concepts including frame based animation, tweening, basic programming and even OOP.
In most programs the point wouldn't be to teach the specific technology, but to teach something like "interactive media design/programming", or variations on that. To keep things manageable, though, often courses will pick one environment for the examples/project to be in. Flash is a common choice; HTML5 and Processing are also used semi-regularly. Courses catering more for CS majors might use something lower-level like raw DirectX or OpenGL (possibly via a wrapper like Glut or SDL). You typically can't avoid choosing some technology, whether it's Flash or OpenGL, even if the point of the course isn't specifically to teach that technology's API and quirks.
This is an embarrassing low point for Hacker News. Trolling, exaggerated headline on the front page. It takes almost no effort to make a reasonable counterargument, so I sense that's not the point of the submission.
First, you're confusing technologies. H.264 is a video codec that YouTube uses for all its video. The HTML5 and Flash players and any custom players (Android or iOS's app, for example) use it.
The HTML5 player is just as usable, if not more so, as the Flash player. Go give it a try again: http://www.youtube.com/html5 You might not even notice the difference.
To add to the pedantry: H.264 is a video format, a bitstream specification, not a codec. A codec is a compressor/decompressor for said format, so in this case that's x264/ffmpeg.
Grrrrr i personally hate this darwinistic way of dealing with people 'if you cant door deal with it, then get out'... this is not like trying to get into the NFL, he should have taken a nicer approach, in fact as a teachet he should have been able to predict this well in advance and shown his students how to transition to other technologies
True, "if you can't deal with it..." approach is rude. But it's the truth. And Tom did explain the situation in detail to the students as he wrote in his post. It wasn't like STFU or leave.
What do you think would be its implications on Flash Support for Desktop Browsers? Will Adobe discontinue its support when some other biggie comes and claims that HTML5 is the way to go for desktop browsers as well?!
People act as if flash is being abandoned. Its not. Mobile Flash is. Several new smart-phones and tablets nowadays use browsers with REAL FLASH on it, so there is no need to continue development on mobile flash. That's all that happened. No big win for anyone. Adobe has been focusing on html5, as have the rest of the web, and imho, Adobe has some great tools to author content in html5 already.