I have a question about Flash. I am writing my first browser game, and I am trying to decide on a technology.
I have a few requirements:
I don't want to have to pay to write code and a not-complete-crap free IDE would also be good.
I want most (or > 70%) of "normal" computer users to have it installed, so, Unity's pretty much out.
I don't really need performance too much
I need 2D, not 3D
Needs to be able to communicate with the server, and no extra downloads required.
Preferably works with the Facebook platform, but, this isn't a requirment.
Now, I would go with Flash as it fills all of my requirements, but, to my understanding, I need to pay for CS5 to get coding with Flash. Is an alternative around this possible?
Are there any other alternatives I'm missing?
To add onto what ColinE mentioned, FlashDevelop also provides you the ability to download and install the Flex SDK. However, if FlashDevelop as an IDE doesn't work for you, you can also download the Flex SDK yourself.
This is essentially the same thing that's included with Adobe's Flash Builder application, which is basically built on top of Eclipse. This should at least give you a start on creating things in Flash, though you'll be limited to ActionScript 3. I'd suggest sticking with AS3 as it provides a lot of power compared to AS2.
If you do choose to use the Flex SDK, I'll give you a bit of knowledge I've gained since I started using it for developing games. This may be a little long-winded but hopefully it'll answer some of the initial starter questions.
You can develop apps/games using the Flex library but this may increase the size of your SWF file. However, it's worth noting that it's not required to use the library. You can use the compiler (mxmlc) provided in the SDK to build against .as files as well.
From here, there's a few gotchas that might creep in when it comes to assets. Flex provides you the ability to embed assets within your class files. Out of the box, it allows for the embedding of a handful of formats, most notably PNG, TTF, XML and SWF. There's a lot that you'll be able to do with Flex from a code standpoint but it's not very pretty for creating the assets themselves. Primarily, I use the Flash IDE only for cases where a project requires a SWF asset, however, most of my projects tend to use PNG.
When using an embedded SWF asset, you may come across an issue where any code that's included in the asset, such as any hover or animation logic as ActionScript, gets stripped out of the copy embedded in the resulting project's SWF. A workaround for this is forcing the mimetype to "application/octet-stream" and using a Loader object's loadBytes() method.
Finally, you should be able to make some sort of progress provided you have some sort of ActionScript knowledge. There are plenty of resources out there but be aware that a fair amount of them still use AS2. The knowledge can be applied with some modifications but may require some extra legwork to implement. The language is fairly easy to work with.
With all that, I wish you luck. Flash gets a lot of flack these days but even with HTML5 nearing final, there's still a lot of features that it will never be able to touch without leveraging Flash in some way.
Flash, Silervlight or HTML5 will tick pretty much all of those boxes for you, however Silverlight is only installed on ~65% of computers at the moment.
HTML5 can be tough to develop with, so perhaps Flash is your best bet. See the following question which discusses Flash IDEs:
Flash Developer IDE
FlashDevelop is a free development environment for Flash.
I believe your question is about which type of development you should use to get this game going, but I would also urge you to consider the future of each of these software sets, and choose based on what you would like more experience in.
Flash has been holding it's ground pretty well, but I've seen it less and less on major sites these days, and I believe HTML 5 is taking pretty good stabs at it. Even Pandora doesn't use flash anymore, and that was a pretty well designed little flash app (they still use AIR for Pandora One, but not their main site). Instead, like many other websites, it's using HTML and JavaScript.
So, while flash is slowly losing ground to HTML and JavaScript, where does Silverlight stand? Microsoft is still pushing their Silverlight technology, and based on Microsoft's support scheme, they'll still be using it for the next few years at least. At the same time, it's based on the .NET framework, so you'll be gaining some valuable WPF and .NET skills by using Silverlight.
There is no right or wrong decision here, it's really just based on which technology you see yourself using past this product, and which technology you want to learn.
I'd give it a shot in Silverlight, myself, but that's simply because I dislike flash, and there's already too many HTML and JavaScript developers.
edit:
Silverlight is a relatively small 30 second install. I generally hate installing new plugins, but Silverlight is relatively painless, imo.
Related
I have read a range of articles on advantages/disadvantages of Microsoft Silverlight framework in comparisson to Flash.
Fact that there were two version of Silverlight in the past 18 months worries me, as well as the fact that over 97% of web browsers already have Flash pre-installed.
I'm a .NET developer and I'm very happy with what I can do in the framework. At the moment I feel like I have to put my own preference to a side and decide whether I need to integrage flash with .NET instead of using Silverlight with WPF.
Did anybody try integrating Flash with .NET? What challanges did you come across? How easy was it in comparisson to working in Silverlight?
I have also read about recent talks between Microsoft and Adobe. Whatever way I go It feels very unstable. Can HTML 5 really compete with what's offered by Flash and Silverlight?
Thank you
I have integrated both Flash and Silverlight into my ASP.Net applications. I have to say that working with Silverlight was by far the easier way to go. Communication with the server is easier, initial setup was easier (along with a ASP.Net application or a simple HTML page). Integration into the ASP.Net application was the easiest part (as I'm sure you imagined it would be). If you're a .Net developer, then this is the way to go.
Also, I wouldn't worry about either of these technologies going away anytime soon. HTML5 is not going to take over. It'll take some of the market share, not all.
EDIT
Here are some links to other SO posts on the subject:
Which is the future of web development: HTML5 or Silverlight(or other RIA framework)?
Should I Abandon Adobe Flash for HTML5 and ?
Can HTML5 do most of what Flash does today?
This is basically the way I pick web technologies:
do you need to support every available platform made now, in the past and in the future? HTML4 (yes, 4!)
Do you have to make stuff that is not possible with HTML4, and are ready to sacrifice some user base? HTML5
Can you limit yourself to desktop users (no mobile devices) and need a very interactive application (more so than a "website")? Flash or Silverlight
Do you need to integrate with .NET? Silverlight
Are you familiar with .NET (more so than Flash)? Silverlight
Do you want to reach the absolute maximum number of users? Flash
Do you know Flash/ActionScript (more so than .NET)? Flash
Do you need even more features than what Silverlight provides, and can you limit your deployment to intranets? WPF/XBAP
The whole debate around Silverlight being dead is completely flawed in my opinion: those that thought Silverlight would be completely multiplatform really were not connected with the reality: just by looking at Flash it was clear from the beginning that iOS & co. would never support Silverlight.
HTML5 will probably be the real "universal multiplatform" environment (what is HTML4 now), but with all the nightmares we all know of html. If you are targeting desktops and need more interactivity, better tooling, unit testing & co. then Flash and Silverlight will still be the first choice.
Silverlight's user base is quickly coming close to Flash, so between those two it really comes down to the one you know better and the ease of integration with an existing backend.
The fact that Silverlight got a new major version every 9 months until now is just a sign of how much they are pushing it. Now that it's reached a mature stage you can expect to see larger intervals.
Frankly, AS3 is not hard to learn if you already know OOP. It will take a week or so. If you don't like all the frames stuff in Flash, you can create a single frame app and then manage everything from your custom AS classes.
I'm also a .NET developer, and I had no trouble learning AS3.0. Of course, one week is not enough to become an expert (it takes years to become an expert in any field). But if you simply need to create video or mp3 players, create drag and drop basic games/apps to add to an ASP.NET page, it's worth spending 20 or 30 hours on AS3. There are great video trainings out there . Seven or 8 hours training should take the 20 to 30 hours I mentioned. I went for AS3.0 a few years ago, rather than SL, simply because everybody has Flash plugin installed.
AS3.0 is typed (simple types like Number, String etc), but at least it's typed. There are plenty of functions, classes and methods allowing to implement hit tests, drag/drop, event listening (mouse events, keyboard events etc). Really cool and fun language.
Take care.
HTML5 has SVG and Canvas and video.
It's perfectly possible that at one point someone creative is going to create a very nice animation package that generates SVG files. There already are SVG generators there of course, but obviously they're not good enough because SVG and Flash is, so far, never mentioned in the same sentence.
But is ought to be possible. SVG does structured vector graphics, embedded scripting. The things you see done in Flash has to all be possible in SVG. Flash also has this awful notion of frames, which was a major design flaw from day one.
They should have just let you determine that you want to move an object from point A to B along a path determined by a line or curve or freehand path, and that the times of A and B can be anything and not just confined to a particular frame.
Then at playback, the faster your computer is, the better the frame rate ends up being. Slower computer, slower frame rate. As long as the object moves from A to B.
Then there are the bugs and just overall clumsy handling of Flash.
Flash can be done so much better.
So, I think that someone will at one point soon make an amazing SVG animation package that will just crush Flash.
I'm against Silverlight because it's Microsoft. Microsoft means proprietary. They do whatever they want to do. You've already mentioned different version numbers. This means your customers have to have the right version downloaded. You can count on your customers having to download major upgrades, and before you know it their entire .net install needs updating, before you can show your animations and applications.
Silverlight also doesn't work on Linux. It's supposed to, through Novell's efforts with Mono, etc, but in practice, in the field, it just does not work where you need it to.
I don't know if and how well, in practice, Silverlight works on the Mac, but I don't trust it.
Eventually, I think, that future HTML5/SVG (Canvas maybe?) is the way to go. It'll even do 3D using OpenGL accelerated graphics... (but I don't know if that's portable enough).
In the meantime, Flash is your safe bet, and it's almost guaranteed to run anywhere.
I wonder if anyone has created an animation package that outputs to swf files that's better than the Flash IDE. Shouldn't be too hard, given Flash IDE's clumsiness.
Microsoft recently announced a "change of direction" with Silverlight with more emphasis on mobile rather than desktop.
Flex/Flash and SilverL. now are very similar... using webservice for the clientt/server comunication you can work well with both.
Sure, for .NET developer with Visual Studio to use SilverL. is much more FAST and you need C# only.
But, Flash is more available on PCs, also for mobile devices... you could think for Flash if you need portability.
I see a lot of talk how HTML5 video tag will kill Flash. But while video is the most widely used part of Flash/SL, it's only a small part of their technical abilities. For instance you can write a game using full 3D graphics and socket connections in Flex, and serious business applications, etc.
Is the thinking that Javascript will kill those parts of Flash/Flex/SL? Because while that seems feasible now for even quite rich web-apps, what about any kind of high-performance app like real-time graphics?
You can do some pretty cool things with HTML5, Canvas and the like. Check out the Google-hosted http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ (which, really should be named HTML5 experiments, as most run fine on HTML5 browsers). You can get an idea of what is possible, including 3D rendering, complex games and some pretty amazing animations.
(source: chromeexperiments.com)
Sketchpad by Michael Deal
basically, this question has been around already.
The answer in short: no, HTML5 will not replace anything. HTML5 will however offer a standard for features currently only available through plugins. Once HTML5 is released, which is scheduled for 2022, it will be a great thing. Still, even by then, if IE survives, I doubt it's support will be outstanding.
There has been a very similar question to which I provided a rather lengthy but detailed answer: should web developers learn flash
My personal opinion about anyone who thinks HTML5 will replace 3rd party plugins is, that they lack basic understanding of HTML5's role or sufficient knowledge about any plugin and have little if any grasp of how the web evolves.
Yes, the day HTML5 is sufficiently spread for large companies to rely on it, many of them will be able to replace 3rd party plugins within their web applications. However, as pointed out in my other post, the web is constantly evolving. HTML5 does not provide new features, that weren't available using plugins. And HTML5 does not provide all features currently available using plugins. New types of apps, services and content distribution mechanisms will arise. Also, as long as JavaScript stays fully dynamic, JS runtimes will never be able to provide the same speed as runtimes designed to run bytecode generated from statically typed languages.
Personally, for the client side, I basically only target the Flash Player, because to me it is the most convenient platform. I am not afraid that HTML5 might kill flash, for a simple reason:
Until HTML5 is really usable and largely supported through sufficient user adaptation, it will take several years. In the same time, all major plugins will continue to evolve, as well as their eco-system, including developement tools, cross-compilers and compatibility layers.
Today, you already need no knowledge of HTML, CSS and sometimes even JavaScript to create webapps, using GWT, qooxdoo or other tools.
HTML+CSS+JS represents nothing more than a platform that more and more languages are able to target. Using reasonable amounts of abstraction, one will sooner or later be able to develop apps in a totally platform agnostic manner, causing virtually no overhead for the lion's share of all apps: GUI (including localization, validation etc.) and application logics.
In the end, there's no reason to get excited. Currently, both Flash and Silverlight exceed HTML+JavaScript implementations in speed and features exposed through the available API. That is, why people use it. Altough unlikely, some day they may become obsolete. In this bright, bright future, far, far away, I will be happy to compile my sources to run in a JavaScript interpreter rather than on AVM2.
On a vaguely related note: check out Haxe.
There are many high-performance apps with real-time data streaming and graphics in production today that have been built with Flex. You can see some examples of these in the flex.org showcase. As always, deciding on a technology comes down to what is being built, who it's being built for, and who is building it. Flash, Flex, Silverlight, HTML5, etc will all coexist.
The discussions I've been part of on this subject, pretty much always seem to come to the conclusion that, while the HTML 5 standard will be a a great thing, once it's in place. It will by definition be a standard, standards take a long time to change, therefore innovation will be driven largely by plugins like Flash and SL.
And yes you can do a lot of what Flash and SL can do with Javascript, however Flash/Flex has the strong point of being used for desktop installed Air applications, and Silverlight has the similar thing with their "Out Of Browser" functionality. These are things where they clearly have the upper hand over Javascript.
At the end of the day it's not a matter of who will kill who, but rather which tool is the right one for the job and what skills does you / your development team have.
That's my 2c anyway...
Did Flex replace HTML forms? Have HTML forms killed Flex? Has C++ replaced C? Has Ruby or Lua or Python killed Haskell or Scheme or assembly?
Seriously, what is the obsession lately over whether HTML5 will kill plugins? Is it so hard to imagine people using Flash for content that needs to stand out and maximize expressiveness, and using HTML5 for content that needs to utilize standard metaphors and maximize accessibility?
In other words, no - the thinking among thinking people is not that the HTML5 stack will kill Flash/Flex/SL. If things work as they should, the plugins will keep innovating what you can do with proprietary techniques, and HTML will keep taking the most successful of those innovations and standardizing them. And if things don't work well - if a plugin fails to innovate, or a new version of HTML is done badly, then they'll fade into obscurity as developers stick with whatever solves their problems.
I think it depends on the authoring tools and the efficiency of the browsers. It is reported that the upcoming Flash CS5 export content directly as a HTML5 canvas. So the canvas can be a quite reasonable flash substitution.
For "high-performance app like real-time graphics", see WebGL. Mozilla and WebKit already have experimental support for WebGL, which is based on the <canvas> element.
For sockets, there are WebSockets, which are also experimental in some browsers.
For background processing, which can improve the user experience, there are web workers (experimental again).
A lot of experimental stuff, but they are improving them constantly, so at some point, even without an HTML5 standard defining them, we might see games specifically targeted for a certain browser (actually, there is some proof of concept but I can't find the link right now).
I think JS already has killed Flash/SL/JavaFX. JS is the most used language on the web, so just add a few features, enhance some tidbits and voila. Flash is alive because of videos and games, no serious website uses Flash nor any other RIA. Just wait, it's going to be a hell of a ride the next few years.
I'm mainly asking this to professionals who know the playing field of professional developing. Is it worth it to learn and develop skills in Silverlight?
I know that penetration for Silverlight is obviously low in comparison to Flash but Silverlight seems lighter and a more cutting edge technology.
What are some of the benefits Silverlight has over Flash?
Is there a lot of work for Silverlight developers (of course combining them with ASP.net)?
Thank you very much for all the responses. :)
Edit: I program mainly in C# so there will be an obvious plus side to using it.
Also, how reliable are these results: BubbleMark
It's a huge topic and you can read articles all day on Flash-vs-Silverlight-vs-AJAX.
I use Silverlight and was completely over the moon when it was released due to the ability to employ the CLR in browser based applications. Javascript/DHTML development drives me nuts and for me Silverlight was my way to escape its clutches. As far as Flash goes my very brief foray into it found ActionScript to be more painful than Javascript but that was years ago and things have undoubtedly improved since then.
Basically if you're using .Net for your back end then it makes perfect sense to use Silverlight for the front end. It means you only have one development environment and language to deal with and where appropriate you can reuse a lot of your back end code on the client.
In practice it's not quite that easy and my experience has been that there is a lot of resistance in user land towards Silverlight. The main bone of contention is generally that the cross browser and operating system support is not good enough. Users that employ Opera or use Linux or PowerPC Macs can't use Silverlight (Moonlight isn't there yet). Those users are generally vocal ones.
If you know all your users will be on IE/Firefox on Windows/Mac Intels or you have a compelling application that users will change their set ups for then Silverlight is almost certainly your best option. If you have an application that you want to hit a wide range or disparate users you may need to weigh up the options a bit more.
The fact that Microsoft has thrown their weight behind Silverlight as the Web Application Framework of choice gives it a pretty decent chance of becoming widely used (though certainly no guarantee).
To position yourself in the most versatile way, though, you might want to consider first learning about the capabilities and limitations of both systems and then learning how to implement with both.
There will probably be many projects done with Flash, and many done with Silverlight. If you can program to either, you will be in a good position. If you are able to provide skillful assistance in deciding which one is best for a given project, you will be in a great position.
I tried it and did not like it. I didn't like the split development environment, xaml, or the limited install base and platforms it runs on. The IDE and platform itself still has a ways to go before I would consider it for use in a production environment.
We are launching a site that is media heavy and looking at using silverlight, since most of our video library is in wmv and from what i understand flash serving still costs a couple bucks.
Is silverlight really adopted out there, I know i use it as well as a bunch of developers for internal apps but as far as a web application is it ready to go, i went through a mac install with safari and had to restart my whole browser to install it, not exactly a great user experience. I also noticed that MS doesnt even use it for http://video.msn.com and also the few sites that have launched get crazy MAC people crying bloody murder , read http://www.itwriting.com/blog/641-mac-users-refusing-to-install-silverlight.html where one New York Times reader said "Nope. Not going to use anything from Microsoft. If reading the NYT requires MS products then, for this reader, goodbye NYT." when asked to install silverlight for NYT site. Tech wise moving forward I like Silverlight and some of the things i can do from a framework / wpf perspective and want to move ahead with it just not sure it's the out there enough yet.
Just wondering what people think out there
I think that if you have a user base that refuses to upgrade from Internet Explorer 6, good luck with getting anything else adopted, including Silverlight.
The thing can be installed more or less automatically just like Flash, for crying out loud. How difficult could it be?
The argument up to now has been, "Flash is already installed on most computers, so it already has high adoption." But that's a chicken and egg problem. How did Flash get adopted in the first place?
The NYT reader just has a prejudice. Clearly he believes that Microsoft is the evil empire. There's really nothing you can do about that. The real question is, how prevalent is this attitude? Certainly it will be common among the Linux/open source crowd, but it's hard for me to believe that this attitude would be prevalent among the average user. If anything, the Microsoft name is a warm and fuzzy for them.
I personally think Silverlight will pick up pace on business applications just because it's much programmer friendly and the fact that you can program it in .NET languages means it is much easier to reuse and maintain your business logic.
However, in terms of consumer application I don't think it can beat Flash, who's got a much larger install base and already used by most major companies. Also, don't forget HTML5, which now has integrated video element supported by major browsers including Firefox, Chrome and Safari.
Despite codec arguments, it is another strong contender, which will squeeze Silverlight's market share even further.
As a user and as a web developer I like sticking to the bare minimum. Like it or not Flash has pretty much become the standard platform for rich media on the internet. Everyone I know has flash to use videos from common sources like You Tube.
Since money seems to be an issue I might suggest Flowplayer, an open source Flash video player. Currently it only supports mpg, mov, and avi, but it's fairly easy to convert wmv to other formats using open source tools.
Here is Flowplayer:
http://flowplayer.org/v2/player/index.html
Here are some simple instructions for converting video:
http://flowplayer.org/v2/tutorials/my-movies.html
The only major sites using silverlight are ones that microsoft either owns, or has paid to use it, and most of the ones that they paid for switched back to flash. The version number may be approaching 3.0, but it is still a very new and immature platform that is not as widely installed as flash (which is pushing 97% of all browsers).
If you are talking wmv vs silverlight, I would go silverlight. If you are talking flash vs silverlight, I would say flash hands down. If you want to be forward thinking, serve stuff up with the HTML <video> tag, with flash as a fallback.
I remember that MLB went from showing those games from silverlight back to flash due to a few issues that didn't get resolve. It work pretty well on the Olympics, but beyond that I can't say how good or bad it is. Do you have any idea what percentage of users have Silverlight installed for their browsers? That might be something to look at.
I've heard that desktop Silverlight penetration is around 30%. Flash is somewhere north of 95%.
Going with Flash seems the easy decision now. I can certainly imagine a lot of Mac users seeing the "install Silverlight" message and saying, "Ick! No!"
In the long run, probably most Windows PCs will have Silverlight. Diehard Mac fans may never install it.
Meanwhile, I've seen more and more people who don't install Java, and who just pass on any site that says to install Java.
Adobe's only weakness now is mobile. They seem to have desktop locked up tight.
I've been developing with XHTML, CSS and Javascript for about 4 years now.
I love it a lot and hate it a little. I've looked into Flash and Silverlight a bit, but as a developer, I'm not too keen on them.
One reason is that they lock you into a vendor and generally, into using that vendor's tools. E.g. Adobe Flash or Microsoft Visual Studio, etc.
Also, Silverlight seems to mix content, layout/styling and behavior and into a single markup language, whereas I like the XHTML way of separating them out in code, but bringing them together in the user's web browser.
I also applaud the usability of the web, e.g. back button, hyperlinks, etc. which are set-in-stone standards that people are used to dealing with.
However, I'm seeing a lot of industry support for Silverlight and Flash. As far as .NET Developer jobs, I'm seeing less jobs for front-end/.NET developers and more jobs for Silverlight/.NET developers.
Will HTML developers still be employable in the future, or should I consider moving to a proprietary platform such as Silverlight?
While Flash/Silverlight skills may be worth developing, I think you will find that general web development skills will still be required for some years to come. Mobile apps in particular seem to place more emphasis on good, basic web design without dependence on plugins and or client-side code. Eventually, I would expect web standards to evolve to subsume the best (or at least most used) features of proprietary plugins. The web, at least, seems to be a place where people tend to favor solutions that maintain independence over lock-in to specific vendor technologies.
No, I think that idea will never fully catch on. The problem is really about the platform being developed on.
Look at how accessible the web is. Almost any machine can get on the web. My phone, my iPod, my laptop, my 11 year old PII machine, my gaming tower, all can access the same web.
The devices I have are not the limit to what can reach the web either. I think just about every gaming platform and cell phone can get on the web, as well as thin terminals running any OS imaginable. I'm sure there are others also.
The big thing looks like it's going to be the mobile market in the next few years. Some mobile devices can run flash, but it isn't used much because of the poor support & performance. The only way that the mobile web can work is by using pure standards based solutions, because that's really the only baseline that can be trusted to exist.
No matter what proprietary technologies come out, I can always rely on the fact that my XHTML pages will still render successfully on whatever device decides to access it. The same can't be said for flash or silverlight.
At the same time, I can also guarantee you that there will be a bigger market for flash and silverlight because the web is becoming more "media rich" in some niche markets (YouTube, Adobe Air, Hulu, Google Gears, etc. to name a few examples). There will absolutely be a market for it, but I wouldn't say it will defeat XHTML and web standards because the web is constantly being redefined.
No matter how much Flash or Silverlight try to take on, the technology will move so fast that the only baseline that I think will remain will be standards like XHTML and CSS.
Flash has been around for years and still hasn't taken over. I think that is one good example of how hard it is to replace XHTML.
Go for server-side development of any kind, but I wouldn't become a Silverlight or Flash specialist.
<CrystalBallMode>
To be honest I can't see it happening. Other than the reasons mentioned by tvanfosson and DanHerbert, the XHTML + CSS + JS stack just grew mature enough so that things like AJAX and jQuery make pretty much all the lightweight client side stuff easy with these tools (as opposed to things like streaming video, heavy computations or sockets etc.)
Common technological inertia will just guarantee that the existing things will stay around. People are much more likely to use something that has been around for a while and has been extended to meet the latest requirements than to use something totally new. Of course there are great paradigm shifts every now and then like the native to managed code transition but I don't see that happening with Flash or Silverlight.
</CrystalBallMode>
My hope is that what comes out of all of this is a new standardized web platform truly suited to building the web applications that people want to see with tools that developers really want to use. I see all of the effort going to trying to shoehorn these legacy web technologies into the "Web 2.0" model and I just wish that this effort could go towards making a truly revolutionary "Web v.Next".
Don't get me wrong, I really like what jQuery is doing to make Javascript client code easier, but it's still Javascript and my personal preference is to work with strongly typed languages with productive development tools.
In the meantime, I think tools like Silverlight and Flash have a lot to offer and help you do things more easily in some cases than in other web technologies, and there are some things you simply can't do any other way. But I don't think Silverlight or Flash or any other technology is the end game, just a step in the right direction.
Consider for a moment that you can manipulate a web page using Javascript, (X)HTML, and CSS with a great deal of overlap in functionality and yet ALL three technologies remain in prominent use today. The reason for this is because all three languages are different tools meant to solve different problems and no one of them can serve as an adequate replacement for the other.
Its the same thing with Flash / Silverlight vs these existing web technologies. In fact, I work in a dev shop that builds Flash based e-learning. One of our current products was originally built to use a purely Flash-based solution for navigation, etc. However, as the product has continued to evolve we have actually moved a lot of the functionality from the Flash-based e-learning module and into regular html pages.
In other words, I don't think that we'll be abandoning the current tools that web developers use any time soon. For the most part I see Flash / Silverlight as additional tools that will solve particular problems better than we were able to solve them previously.
Neither one is going to win out anytime soon. I expect which one is used will depend entirely on the purpose for many years to come.
The reason you're seeing so many job offerings for Silverlight of late is because it's a relatively new technology and just recently gained some momentum.
Though, I do expect Silverlight to make quick work of Flash.
I sure hope so. And yes, I think they will. There will be some development on legacy (XHTML/CSS/JS) apps for re-tuning purposes, but I think there will come a day when new apps are simply not created on those platforms.
Mobile phones are the issue right now. Flash isn't available on many of the major phone models. And their browsers are all over the map. Luckily there's Webkit (iPhone and G1).
If Silverlight makes it to a web platform then it will be a nice viable alternative to the hodgepodge of technologies that are currently in use. FYI, Microsfoft says Silverlight on Android is very possible. On the iPhone, hard to say, Apple is weird about such things.
AOL recently created a RIA version of it's email client in Silverlight. Looks nice and there's no Javascript errors to worry about. From a developer standpoint, that's huge.