PDA

View Full Version : Flash is pointless



bruce89
January 3rd, 2009, 04:43 AM
More and more websites embed audio and video via Flash nowadays. It really annoys me for a number of reasons. One is the fact that Free implementations are not and never will be "complete".

I just don't understand why sites don't embed video and audio sort-of directly anymore like the good old days. Even having the old WMP embedding was better, as at least Totem can fake as if it is WMP or these other players.

The reason for this (rather pointless) outburst of badly-constructed thoughts is the Quadrantid meteor shower. SpaceWeather.com (http://spaceweather.com/) usually has a link to an audio stream of radar signals, so you can hear the meteors if it's cloudy (which it often is here). Now I see they don't bother with a "normal" audio stream, but have some Flash thing to play the audio through the browser. Swfdec doesn't work with it, so I can't hear it.

I'd hate for the Web to become dependent on Flash for fairly basic things like this. I hope that HTML 5 will save the day.

Kingsley
January 3rd, 2009, 04:54 AM
Just take the easy route and install Adobe Flash Player like everyone else.

I think Flash is a much better option than embedded video or mp3 when I'm on Linux.

Rokurosv
January 3rd, 2009, 04:54 AM
I think it has its place in multimedia and interactive design, if it's done right, cause I've seen some sites that just plain abuse their flash skills and overload the whole thing. My recent favorite is http://www.monokai.nl/site.php. If you wanna talk about 'pointless' check here (http://silverlight.net/)

Dr Small
January 3rd, 2009, 05:00 AM
I agree with you, bruce89

MikeTheC
January 3rd, 2009, 05:08 AM
My take, simply as an observer of the results of web design, are that Flash is useful, but I'd just as soon see a F/OSS standards-based solution as the means to this particular end instead.

What with some of the things on the horizon with HTML 5, as well as Chrome and FireFox 3.1 substantially upgrading their Java interpreters, Flash may begin to meet it's equal for almost anything but those rare, specific things that either can *only* be done in Flash, or for which Flash happens to be the best-suited solution technology.

We shall see...

bruce89
January 3rd, 2009, 05:09 AM
Just take the easy route and install Adobe Flash Player like everyone else.

I think Flash is a much better option than embedded video or mp3 when I'm on Linux.

Looking through these forums, what are most problems caused by? Yup, you've guessed it, "official" Flash.

I suppose I'm not a huge Web video user anyway, TV's bad enough.


I agree with you, bruce89

Yikes, there's another one.


What with some of the things on the horizon with HTML 5, as well as Chrome and FireFox 3.1 substantially upgrading their Java interpreters, Flash may begin to meet it's equal for almost anything but those rare, specific things that either can *only* be done in Flash, or for which Flash happens to be the best-suited solution technology.

I agree that some things are better dynamic, but JavaScript etc. enables this. What I don't agree with is proprietary wrappers over plain old video +/ audio (which is also in a proprietary format mind).

Now that I think of it, Silverlight and JavaFX are a waste of time too. In some respects, their openness (is that the right word to describe either) is good, but the fact there's 3 of them isn't.

The fact remains that Flash/Silverlight/JavaFX are just (not very) glorified video players, so I'd vote for native Dirac + Vorbis instead.

DocForbin
January 3rd, 2009, 05:17 AM
I agree it's overused, but it has its place and there aren't many options for RIAs. JavaFx looks interesting and has a shot at competing.

saulgoode
January 3rd, 2009, 07:08 AM
Just take the easy route and install Adobe Flash Player like everyone else.
Actually, not installing Flash (Gnash, or Swfdec) is an even easier option, requiring no effort and resulting in, to my view, little sacrifice with regard to web browsing experience -- and a great deal less headache with having to deal with dysfunctional software.

geoken
January 3rd, 2009, 07:21 AM
The fact remains that Flash/Silverlight/JavaFX are just (not very) glorified video players, so I'd vote for native Dirac + Vorbis instead.

That would be like calling linux a glorified file manager. They are plugins which support vector based graphics, video, audio and more.

I don't think you guys really understand how things work out there. Do you think a client would be happy if I pitched them the idea of delivering video in a format who's specs were finalized until about 3 months ago and isn't natively supported in Windows or OS X?

Flash has let us do the things HTML 5 promises for several years. When HTML 5 is supported across all major browsers then we'll see a slow migration to it, but there isn't any point in talking about it now. When someone requests a website with certain features they aren't going to consider "I can have that up and running in about 2 yrs when HTML 5 is a reality and I've had time to master it" as an acceptable answer. "I know I could do it with Flex in 2 months, but I'd rather do it with js over 6 months using 2x the manpower and charge you accordingly" also isn't something a client really wants to hear.

saulgoode
January 3rd, 2009, 08:03 AM
I don't think you guys really understand how things work out there.
I understand. I just don't care. If your client wishes to communicate with me, they shouldn't require that I use software which causes me grief.

Rokurosv
January 3rd, 2009, 08:12 AM
I think that people that create flash based apps and content know who most of their audience is, and the risks it involves. Also since Linux is only a small fraction of the user base, most people don't consider using another option like Javascript.

MisterFlibble84
January 3rd, 2009, 08:13 AM
More and more websites embed audio and video via Flash nowadays. It really annoys me for a number of reasons. One is the fact that Free implementations are not and never will be "complete".

I just don't understand why sites don't embed video and audio sort-of directly anymore like the good old days. Even having the old WMP embedding was better, as at least Totem can fake as if it is WMP or these other players.

The reason for this (rather pointless) outburst of badly-constructed thoughts is the Quadrantid meteor shower. SpaceWeather.com (http://spaceweather.com/) usually has a link to an audio stream of radar signals, so you can hear the meteors if it's cloudy (which it often is here). Now I see they don't bother with a "normal" audio stream, but have some Flash thing to play the audio through the browser. Swfdec doesn't work with it, so I can't hear it.

I'd hate for the Web to become dependent on Flash for fairly basic things like this. I hope that HTML 5 will save the day.

I used to have Flash blacklisted because it was more of an annoyance than anything, not every other site uses it.

At least Adobe has a 64-bit plugin now, that damned nspluginwrapper has been grinding my gears for at least a couple years now.

As long as you use a decent ad blocker, Flash nasties shouldn't much of an issue.

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 08:13 AM
Flash probably would have been close to dead (or only for adverts and cheesy websites) if YouTube didn't come along and start using it for all their videos. :) Now Adobe is promoting it hard as an enterprise technology.

Anyways I think it's a mixed blessing that Adobe even supports Flash on Linux. If they didn't I bet swfdec or what not what be amazing by now. But I digress! I still need use/need Flash.

MisterFlibble84
January 3rd, 2009, 08:19 AM
Flash probably would have been close to dead (or only for adverts and cheesy websites) if YouTube didn't come along and start using it for all their videos. :) Now Adobe is promoting it hard as an enterprise technology.

Anyways I think it's a mixed blessing that Adobe even supports Flash on Linux. If they didn't I bet swfdec or what not what be amazing by now. But I digress! I still need use/need Flash.

It all comes down to the lack of a de facto standard for embedded video giving rise to Flash.

If not flash, then what do you use? Real? Windows Media? Quicktime?

Talk about a mess! I remember about 5-6 years ago, having to have a different media player installed on my XP system every time I wanted to watch someone's embedded video.

And there's the bonus that Flash Video doesn't have DRM (yet). so you can use Video Downloader and snag videos if you want them, with Microsoft and Apple formats they can set a license that expires whenever and then the file is junk data. :)

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 08:37 AM
It all comes down to the lack of a de facto standard for embedded video giving rise to Flash.

If not flash, then what do you use? Real? Windows Media? Quicktime?

Talk about a mess! I remember about 5-6 years ago, having to have a different media player installed on my XP system every time I wanted to watch someone's embedded video.

And there's the bonus that Flash Video doesn't have DRM (yet). so you can use Video Downloader and snag videos if you want them, with Microsoft and Apple formats they can set a license that expires whenever and then the file is junk data. :)

Yeah basically if HTML5 was widely supported about the time YouTube came out, I think most people probably wouldn't even know what Flash is by now. I think YouTube had a very big effect on Flash acceptance. And yeah I agree with you, Flash is a lesser evil then having everything in WMV, RV or QuickTime. :mad:

Hopefully though HTML5 starts getting adopted more by the likes of Internet Explorer (rofl), because it does have some interesting features other then native video support.

techmarks
January 3rd, 2009, 09:43 AM
So much for proprietary web standards.

Adobe's Flash is used all over the place now, if it was a Microsoft technology there would be alot more dislike of it, I'm sure of it, it's a sort of hypocrisy.

Adobe will not come up with a native Flash player for FreeBSD.

The Linux version does not work well with FreeBSD.

Why? It shouldn't be very difficult to do at all.

Erunno
January 3rd, 2009, 11:07 AM
I very much doubt that HTML 5 plus JavaScript can replace Flash for a number of reasons.

1. HTML 5 and JS implementations would have to be feature-for-feature and bug-for-bug compatible. This is difficult to achieve across the various web engines. OpenDocument shares this problem as well as AFAIK no word processor currently implements the whole specification but each one only unique subsets.

2. Following point 1, Flash is browser and platform independent. You don't have to worry if the user uses browser xyz in a particular version 123 which does not or incorrectly implements your favourite feature abc. With Flash, you can disregard this differences as each browser on each platform runs the same plug-in (where available). Cross-platform is the concern of Adobe, not designers.

3. Flash distribution is fast and almost ubiquitous. Unlike web browsers, which not only differ in supported features but also sometimes take months and years before being widely adopted by the end-users the distribution of a new Flash version is by industry standards almost immediately. It's far easier for designers to adopt new features which a new version brings as it's unlikely that it will break the site for many users.

MisterFlibble84
January 3rd, 2009, 11:25 AM
Yeah basically if HTML5 was widely supported about the time YouTube came out, I think most people probably wouldn't even know what Flash is by now. I think YouTube had a very big effect on Flash acceptance. And yeah I agree with you, Flash is a lesser evil then having everything in WMV, RV or QuickTime. :mad:

Hopefully though HTML5 starts getting adopted more by the likes of Internet Explorer (rofl), because it does have some interesting features other then native video support.

Microsoft doesn't even properly support most of what's out there now, much less anything in Draft status.

Besides, they'll fight to not support HTML 5 if it threatens Silverlight. ;)

MisterFlibble84
January 3rd, 2009, 11:30 AM
So much for proprietary web standards.

Adobe's Flash is used all over the place now, if it was a Microsoft technology there would be alot more dislike of it, I'm sure of it, it's a sort of hypocrisy.

Adobe will not come up with a native Flash player for FreeBSD.

The Linux version does not work well with FreeBSD.

Why? It shouldn't be very difficult to do at all.

The last time I tried to be cute and use Flash 9 on BSD, it was in the Linux Firefox in the Linuxulator and it immediately crashed Firefox every time I tried to load a video.

BSD Flash got abandoned at Version 7, the only way BSD users will see anything past that is when the new and improved Linuxulator ships with FreeBSD 8.

Almost as bad was having to use the 32-bit Flash in nspluginwrapper for years until Adobe got their thumb out of their butt and decided to do X86-64.

Yes I hate Flash, but I hate it slightly less now that I can use the OpenGL acceleration for all it's worth. :popcorn:

DoctorBeaver
January 3rd, 2009, 11:37 AM
Hopefully though HTML5 starts getting adopted more by the likes of Internet Explorer (rofl)...

Do I detect a note of sarcasm? :o

ssam
January 3rd, 2009, 11:49 AM
uninstall it.

currently more than 99% of users have flash installed, so from a web developers point of view its the best way to guarantee that a site looks and works the same everywhere. the best way to change the web might be to change those stats.

if you want to watch youtube use totem or miro. some sites will detect that you have no flash and give you a non-flash version. when you really need to view a flash site, install it, and remove it after.

etnlIcarus
January 3rd, 2009, 11:53 AM
Considering how much browsers choke with heavy scripting and lots of interactive elements and considering how slowly the W3c consortium enact new standards, I think most people would agree that Adobe Flash is a necessary evil.

Frankly, I think it's cross-platform implimentation could be far worse and this is me saying that - someone who can't get hardware acceleration support for Flash and commonly encounters sites which almost lock-up their computer due to flash abuse.

Cope57
January 3rd, 2009, 12:17 PM
I would rather see flash gone.
But then again I recall 14.4, 28.8, and 56k connection speeds, back web the Internet was FREE in cost. You just had to use your existing phone lines.
Back when websites used to take almost 20 seconds to load! They were mostly text with maybe a few images.

Now we have flash websites that take 20-40 seconds to load, using a broadband connection! Just because the bandwidth average has throttled up, it should mean we have a faster Internet, not a slower one.
I feel sorry for those that can not afford fast Internet.

forrestcupp
January 3rd, 2009, 03:40 PM
More and more websites embed audio and video via Flash nowadays. It really annoys me for a number of reasons. One is the fact that Free implementations are not and never will be "complete".

I just don't understand why sites don't embed video and audio sort-of directly anymore like the good old days. Even having the old WMP embedding was better, as at least Totem can fake as if it is WMP or these other players.

The reason for this (rather pointless) outburst of badly-constructed thoughts is the Quadrantid meteor shower. SpaceWeather.com (http://spaceweather.com/) usually has a link to an audio stream of radar signals, so you can hear the meteors if it's cloudy (which it often is here). Now I see they don't bother with a "normal" audio stream, but have some Flash thing to play the audio through the browser. Swfdec doesn't work with it, so I can't hear it.

I'd hate for the Web to become dependent on Flash for fairly basic things like this. I hope that HTML 5 will save the day.

Your thinking is flawed. You don't like Flash because there's not a workable Free version of it. But you don't mind it when sites used WMP embedding, which the free totem can play, but you have to have non-free codecs to play the actual video/audio stream. So it really doesn't work that way, either.

The problem here is that you have a choice. You can either commit yourself to software freedom, or to functionality. If you commit to software freedom, you have to realize that the price is the sacrifice of some functionality. But if you choose functionality, you have to realize that the price is the sacrifice of some software freedom and you have to end up using a small amount of proprietary things. We don't live in a software freedom world, so you can't have both.

We're lucky that we have a proprietary Flash available so that we do have the choice for functionality if we want it.

speedwell68
January 3rd, 2009, 03:54 PM
Flash is Ok, who cares that it is non free

geoken
January 3rd, 2009, 03:58 PM
One thing I want to point out here is that 'evil Adobe' doesn't make any money off browser plugins. Adobe is a company which produces content creation applications. I'm pretty sure they could care less whether the several hundred dollar boxed copy of the Flash IDE they're selling you publishes SWF files or HTML files (assuming the requisite features are implemented in HTML 5).

The fact that they took the core of their actionscript VM and gave it to Mozilla to use in future javascript engines speaks to this fact.

Skripka
January 3rd, 2009, 04:01 PM
Flash is Ok, who cares that it is non free

If you mean at it's current state of development (version 10), then I'll agree with you. Before that, even up to Flash 9-was incredibly buggy even on Windows....on top of that-much of the Flash on the web is poorly written, heck Flash itself is a poor standard--but it is the defacto standard now.

geoken
January 3rd, 2009, 04:08 PM
If you mean at it's current state of development (version 10), then I'll agree with you. Before that, even up to Flash 9-was incredibly buggy even on Windows....on top of that-much of the Flash on the web is poorly written, heck Flash itself is a poor standard--but it is the defacto standard now.

Why is it a poor standard? It executes faster than javascript by orders of magnitude. It's vector support at least rivals SVG in capability (and also anything we're expecting to see in HTML 5/Canvas).

What specifically makes it a poor standard?

saulgoode
January 3rd, 2009, 04:28 PM
What specifically makes it a poor standard?
No way of determining size of content being downloaded
No way to schedule, cache, pause, or abort downloading
No way of searching content
Page navigation is non-standard at best, more often non-existent
Browser history is ignored
Browser bookmarking is not available
Security problems owing to exploits
Lack of openness in development of the "standard" so that problems might be resolved and the "standard" improved

geoken
January 3rd, 2009, 04:47 PM
No way of determining size of content being downloaded
No way to schedule, cache, pause, or abort downloading
No way of searching content
Page navigation is non-standard at best, more often non-existent
Browser history is ignored
Browser bookmarking is not available
Security problems owing to exploits
Lack of openness in development of the "standard" so that problems might be resolved and the "standard" improved

1. Yes there is. The loader class has methods for all of those functions.

2. Yes there is. Google can natively search through all the text in SWF files and recognize getURL and navigateToURL.

3. Page navigation is up to the discretion of the designer (aka. freedom). Last I checked there was no standard that dictated where I can place page links/buttons. If there were I wouldn't adhere to it.

4. Wrong. Browser history can be implemented if the user wishes.

5. Wrong again. The same methods for enabling history also, by extension, enable bookmarking and deeplinking.

6. Flash, although being one of the biggest target due to it's ubiquity, has far less exploits than Firefox. The last exploit in recent memory didn't even target the current version of the player, and had to target older players.

7. The standard has been able to be formed and implemented so much faster than competing open standards that I fail to see how this is an argument against it. We had Flash video several years ago, HTML still hasn't been able to reach that point. How exactly does this disparity speak to the faults of SWF's development model.

cardinals_fan
January 3rd, 2009, 05:44 PM
I disagree that Flash is pointless. It's just horrendously overused in situations where animation is unnecessary and sometimes downright counterproductive.

bruce89
January 3rd, 2009, 06:25 PM
Yeah basically if HTML5 was widely supported about the time YouTube came out, I think most people probably wouldn't even know what Flash is by now. I think YouTube had a very big effect on Flash acceptance. And yeah I agree with you, Flash is a lesser evil then having everything in WMV, RV or QuickTime. :mad:


Dirac + Vorbis as I pointed out earlier. Also, I was saying that Video streaming is the wrong thing for Flash.


Your thinking is flawed. You don't like Flash because there's not a workable Free version of it. But you don't mind it when sites used WMP embedding, which the free totem can play, but you have to have non-free codecs to play the actual video/audio stream. So it really doesn't work that way, either.

The codec implementations are not non-free however (though it depends on patent issues).


Flash is Ok, who cares that it is non free

People who use non-supported platforms, and people who don't want to see the Open Web being made non-Open.

Skripka
January 3rd, 2009, 06:47 PM
Why is it a poor standard? It executes faster than javascript by orders of magnitude. It's vector support at least rivals SVG in capability (and also anything we're expecting to see in HTML 5/Canvas).

What specifically makes it a poor standard?

Because if nothing else, it hasn't been until Flash 10 that Flash was reliable on any platform, IME...Finally Flash works in Flash10 as Flash should have worked years ago (i.e. bugginess, memory usage, and CPU usage).

I also don't trust a company who employs programmers who apparently don't know how to use the shift key.

ithanium
January 3rd, 2009, 07:03 PM
flash is maybe one of the best things out there, without it you would not have lots of stuff, just think about it!

bruce89
January 3rd, 2009, 07:17 PM
flash is maybe one of the best things out there, without it you would not have lots of stuff, just think about it!

I don't like adverts or crappy-quality videos thank you.

I don't doubt that some things are fine, I object to Flash's use in Video or Audio streaming.

forrestcupp
January 3rd, 2009, 07:33 PM
I don't like adverts or crappy-quality videos thank you.

I don't doubt that some things are fine, I object to Flash's use in Video or Audio streaming.

Ads are bad, but they can be dealt with by using an ad blocker.

Flash games from PBS and Playhouse Disney, on the other hand, are not bad. My son would be unhappy if they disappeared.

bruce89
January 3rd, 2009, 07:36 PM
Flash games from PBS and Playhouse Disney, on the other hand, are not bad. My son would be unhappy if they disappeared.

That's fine by me.

Polygon
January 3rd, 2009, 10:20 PM
flash videos make it so that they are playable by most everyone, you dont need to worry if quicktime is installed, or if its some weird format that you dont have installed, if its flash, as long as you have FLASH installed, your good.

also, flash videos are really small compared to other embedded videos.

init1
January 3rd, 2009, 10:44 PM
I partially agree. Flash should not be used for navigation, but it's currently the best solution for online games.

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 11:14 PM
Why is it a poor standard? It executes faster than javascript by orders of magnitude. It's vector support at least rivals SVG in capability (and also anything we're expecting to see in HTML 5/Canvas).

What specifically makes it a poor standard?

Do you actually have evidence that Flash is orders of magnitude faster then "JavaScript" (whatever that means - you can't assign a speed to a language, only to an implementation) - even though as you said, Adobe's VM, you know, the thing that executes the actual 'super fast' JavaScript^H^H^H "ActionScript" code.. was donated to Mozilla...


That sounds like a bunch of a certain bovine's animal droppings to me, if you know what I mean.

geoken
January 4th, 2009, 12:13 AM
Do you actually have evidence that Flash is orders of magnitude faster then "JavaScript" (whatever that means - you can't assign a speed to a language, only to an implementation) - even though as you said, Adobe's VM, you know, the thing that executes the actual 'super fast' JavaScript^H^H^H "ActionScript" code.. was donated to Mozilla...


That sounds like a bunch of a certain bovine's animal droppings to me, if you know what I mean.

Have you seen the software 3d that is being done in flash right now?

http://ctho.ath.cx/toys/3d.htmlAccording to Chrome`s task manager, this tab is running at about 22% CPU usage on my C2D E8400.

Meanwhile flash is doing stuff like this.http://alternativaplatform.com/swf/demos/mobilephone/mobilephone.swf


edit: Just noticed the 'filled polygons' option in the javascript example. When turned on the thing rendered at about 5fps and completely pegged on of my cores.

geoken
January 4th, 2009, 12:21 AM
Do you actually have evidence that Flash is orders of magnitude faster then "JavaScript" (whatever that means - you can't assign a speed to a language, only to an implementation)

It means that that fastest common methods of executing actionscript (the flash player) exceed the speed of the fastest common methods of executing javascript (FF 3.1 w/Trace Monkey or Chrome)

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Have you seen the software 3d that is being done in flash right now?

http://ctho.ath.cx/toys/3d.htmlAccording to Chrome`s task manager, this tab is running at about 22% CPU usage on my C2D E8400.

Meanwhile flash is doing stuff like this.http://alternativaplatform.com/swf/demos/mobilephone/mobilephone.swf


edit: Just noticed the 'filled polygons' option in the javascript example. When turned on the thing rendered at about 5fps and completely pegged on of my cores.

You really aren't saying much with your example. Flash supports 3d acceleration. The JavaScript example is being rendered in software. Even if both were to be rendered in software, the quality of the underlying algorithms has much more to do then any inherent performance between the languages. ActionScript and JavaScript are both dynamic EMCAScript-like languages. They suffer the same limitations.

geoken
January 4th, 2009, 12:33 AM
You really aren't saying much with your example. Flash supports 3d acceleration. The JavaScript example is being rendered in software. Even if both were to be rendered in software, the quality of the underlying algorithms has much more to do then any inherent performance between the languages. ActionScript and JavaScript are both dynamic EMCAScript-like languages. They suffer the same limitations.

No, the flash is not hardware rendered. It's completely software rendered.

Also, Javascript recently abandoned the new strict OOP ECMAScript changes choosing rather to stay with their familiar, yet slower procedural language.

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 12:37 AM
No, the flash is not hardware rendered. It's completely software rendered.

Also, Javascript recently abandoned the new strict OOP ECMAScript changes choosing rather to stay with their familiar, yet slower procedural language.

Again, I said it before, it means nothing to your example.. unless of course you compare the same exact algorithm.

Also, can you please explain or prove in formal mathematical terms why OOP ECMAScript by nature would be actually faster then procedural ECMAScript? That an interesting allegation. Proving this by mathematical induction might work.

geoken
January 4th, 2009, 01:07 AM
Also, can you please explain or prove in formal mathematical terms why OOP ECMAScript by nature would be actually faster then procedural ECMAScript? That an interesting allegation. Proving this by mathematical induction might work.

Mainly because you have less loose references and the interpreter doesn't spend as much time trying to figure out what kind of data a variable holds.

For a good example check the massive speed gains seen recently in flash 10 with the vector class. A vector is basically an array but it's elements are type casted when the vector is instantiated. So a vector of integers could only hold integers and the interpreter doesn't need to check. http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2008/09/24/actioscript-3-vector-array-performance-comparison/

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 01:09 AM
Mainly because you have less loose references and the interpreter doesn't spend as much time trying to figure out what kind of data a variable holds.

For a good example check the massive speed gains seen recently in flash 10 with the vector class. A vector is basically an array but it's elements are type casted when the vector is instantiated. So a vector of integers could only hold integers and the interpreter doesn't need to check. http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2008/09/24/actioscript-3-vector-array-performance-comparison/

You are right.. to a degree. But that has nothing with the OOP anything, what you are describing is strong typing.