That's a misleading reply. What you can do in HTML/CSS/JS in a few lines (even with jQuery) or with, say, a day's work does not touch what one can do with the same amount of time using Flash (assuming proficient developers of both technologies). Perhaps the designs might be superficially similar, but they would not be identical.<p>Perhaps on the web that's irrelevant, because the advantages of the native HTML solution will outweigh the facile glitz and glam of the Flash solution. But on an instantaneous aesthetic reaction gauge, the Flash design will probably win. And given the state of the industry (consumers, graphic designers, and relevant management) that aesthetic reaction is potent enough to cement a great many design decisions.<p>A lot of that is changing, especially as expertise in building aesthetically pleasing sites in pure HTML has grown and spread, and as sophistication with web technologies has increased across the board (so that even managers and graphic designers start to understand the problems and limitations of Flash-based designs). But it's still there, and Flash is still a very strong player in the web game, and will be for some time to come. Likely until the tooling exists to allow designers to create pure HTML designs that match or exceed the aesthetics of Flash based designs with the same amount of work.