The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#1

Post by robin_reala » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

The Safari bug that never was (2022)
obyford.com

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#2

Post by rado » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

Good to know they are serious about fixing things. Hopefully my bug, which crashes Safari (!) with CSS only, will be fixed soon: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249575

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#3

Post by intellix » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#4

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

intellix wrote: post #3

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#5

Post by lapcat » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

intellix wrote: post #3

[flagged]

> It's clear they hate the web

I feel that they're just organizationally incompetent. They're moving too fast and lack adequate quality assurance. macOS itself is getting much buggier overall. Craig Federighi should be fired.

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#6

Post by nicoburns » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

intellix wrote: post #3

[flagged]

My impression is that the Safari team is just very small. They are often more quirky than other browsers, and they lag in features (but not nearly so badly as IE used to). On the other hand they've brought some very welcome improvements: the :has selector and container queries being the standout ones in recent times. And their engine is more power efficient and often faster than anyone elses.

EDIT: I would add: 90% seems waaay too high. If this isn't an exaggeration then you may want to consider that you might be doing something wrong (Not checking caniuse for support before using a feature? Trying to use features that are unsupported / poorly supported by your target browsers anyway?)

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#7

Post by als0 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:33 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #6

intellix wrote: post #3

[flagged]

My impression is that the Safari team is just very small. They are often more quirky than other browsers, and they lag in features (but not nearly so badly as IE used to). On the other hand they've brought some very welcome improvements: the :has selector and container queries being the standout ones in recent times. And their engine is more power efficient and often faster than anyone elses. EDIT: I would add: 90% s…

Really enjoying the power efficiency of Safari on a Mac, it keeps me away from the other browsers.

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#8

Post by bartvk » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

I love these kind of bug-hunting stories. The Apple engineer that fixed the bug (and remains nameless), provided an explanation, which happily surprised me. I usually read wry remarks on Twitter about the black hole that's called Radar.

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#9

Post by kitsunesoba » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:45 PM UTC

intellix wrote: post #3

[flagged]

What sites trigger this? Have been using Safari for years and haven’t encountered such a bug.

Re: The Safari bug that never was (2022)

#10

Post by kitsunesoba » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 5:46 PM UTC

als0 wrote: post #7

nicoburns wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that the Safari team is just very small. They are often more quirky than other browsers, and they lag in features (but not nearly so badly as IE used to). On the other hand they've brought some very welcome improvements: the :has selector and container queries being the standout ones in recent times. And their engine is more power efficient and often faster than anyone elses. EDIT: I would add: 90% s…

Really enjoying the power efficiency of Safari on a Mac, it keeps me away from the other browsers.

It’s disheartening that Google and Mozilla seem so disinterested in trying to match or exceed that power efficiency. I like having multiple options for web browsers but because of the difference is so stark it’s only actually a choice on desktops.