that seems like a business issue. i.e. was there much (if any) that one could do technically in flash that one can't do today cross browser using web standards.
If flash was no more capable than what a browser can do with web standards, its a tooling problem for the people who "skill is primary art being able to create cool and great things".
Then the question becomes, why hasn't anyone created tooling on par with what existed for "flash developers" that instead of generating actionscript to be executed by the flash plugin, generated javascript, webassembly, interaction with canvas elements and webgpu. Is it simply because no one sees real business opportunities there? (/ if there is a real growable business opportunities, then why is no one pursuing it?)
If that's the case, then yes, we lost something with the move away from flash (i.e. the inability to use all investment in said legacy tooling that worked, but can no longer generate usable things), but one can also view that as the reason for wanting web standards.
When one is using tools that generate things to web standards, it doesn't matter if those tools become "legacy", if they still work for you, there's a stronger likelihood that they will continue to generate an output into the future that is usable as they are not dependent on a proprietary system to run them, even if the "business opportunity" for the developer of the tools evaporates and they no longer desire to invest in them.
Flash and its tooling was undistinguishable - they did not existed one without another. It was not some separate thing made by someone else. It was made by Adobe, from the start. I think it matters - flash itself was designed so that making great tooling was possible from the start. Web standards are simply not designed for that. They stand in the way, basically.
> why hasn't anyone created tooling on par with what existed for "flash developers" that instead of generating actionscript to be executed by the flash plugin, generated javascript, webassembly, interaction with canvas elements and webgpu.
First, I think there is aspect of "javascript, webassembly, interaction with canvas elements and webgpu" being quite hard to generate in a way that would achieve the same as flash did. As API, they comparatively sux although they are improving.
What you suggest is much harder then it looks like and involved technologies are not making it easier.
It was not made by Adobe from the start. It was made by FutureWave which was bought out by Macromedia who continued to develop it years before they in turn were bought by Adobe.
If flash was no more capable than what a browser can do with web standards, its a tooling problem for the people who "skill is primary art being able to create cool and great things".
Then the question becomes, why hasn't anyone created tooling on par with what existed for "flash developers" that instead of generating actionscript to be executed by the flash plugin, generated javascript, webassembly, interaction with canvas elements and webgpu. Is it simply because no one sees real business opportunities there? (/ if there is a real growable business opportunities, then why is no one pursuing it?)
If that's the case, then yes, we lost something with the move away from flash (i.e. the inability to use all investment in said legacy tooling that worked, but can no longer generate usable things), but one can also view that as the reason for wanting web standards.
When one is using tools that generate things to web standards, it doesn't matter if those tools become "legacy", if they still work for you, there's a stronger likelihood that they will continue to generate an output into the future that is usable as they are not dependent on a proprietary system to run them, even if the "business opportunity" for the developer of the tools evaporates and they no longer desire to invest in them.