Reason #32978 why no one should be using ANY version of IE - the world's worst browser.
JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
181–190 of 237 posts
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
We deal with enough conditionals already. Besides, sharing the same API won't stop you from bumping into some bug that's present in one version and not the other. We'll have to deal with two codebases. Download and runtime speed are not a problem on the Desktop. They should have had the guts to admit that this is all about mobile. Their denial at the end of the post is symptomatic.
> Download and runtime speed are not a problem on the Desktop. When I'm stuck in the wilderness with nothing but an atom based netbook tethered to a patchy and expensive GPRS connection, I beg to differ. Anyway, it isn't just about your bandwidth to your desktop - if each user is transferring less it can be significant for the server-side. If they make proper efforts to maintain 1.9.x for a goodly amount of time the…
>When I'm stuck in the wilderness with nothing but an atom based netbook tethered to a patchy and expensive GPRS connection, I beg to differ.
Who cares about outliers like that? How many people using your webpage are connecting like that? 1%? 0.1%? Less? Are you really going to make major decisions based on 0.1% of your users?
And what's more, if you're building a website for that kind of usage, you probably shouldn't be using a big javascript library in the first place. And the people on those connections should experiment with scriptblocking and selective script whitelisting so they're in control of their poor connection.
Know your audience, I think, is the most important factor when deciding how to go forward.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
API comparability does not ensure functional comparability. Two code bases too.
Unless users of oldIE versions contribute more revenue than it takes to support them (which is obviously app/site-specific), screw them. It's simple economics.
I don't disagree with you one bit. This will vary for each company depending on industry, the average browser of the target market, and the price-point for the product.
More the reason I think jQuery could be shooting itself in the foot. Its ubiquity is based on the fact that if you're doing client side javascript, jQuery is the best option. Coupled with what I started this comment with - its possible that jQuery isn't the best option for everyone anymore.
I personally am not a huge fan of frameworks. Too often I see people solving problems by adding frameworks. Maybe I'm just a crusty guy who doesn't use a lot of tools.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll tell you the numbers. We spend way too much effort trying to make our sophisticated web app work with ie7. The industry demands innovation in ux but it's nearly impossible to provide it when you are writing for 4 browsers. In a lot of cases we struggle for hours on one problem and end up writing a separate implementation for that feature that doesn't perform as well. Now we have segmentation in experience, help…
Why not use chrome frame for ie users? If you're building a 'sophisticated web app' then you really are nuts to try to support way back to ie7. Chrome frame takes about 30-45 sec to DL & install. Doesn't require a browser restart and doesn't require admin rights. Its incredibly slick. and then you're free to work with HTML5 and CSS3 in ie6+
We have no control over whether or not our users use chrome frame. Asking them to install it isn't always an option, especially for government installations.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll tell you the numbers. We spend way too much effort trying to make our sophisticated web app work with ie7. The industry demands innovation in ux but it's nearly impossible to provide it when you are writing for 4 browsers. In a lot of cases we struggle for hours on one problem and end up writing a separate implementation for that feature that doesn't perform as well. Now we have segmentation in experience, help…
FYI: you didn't mention any numbers like you promised.
Sorry - you are right.
1) 90% of our visual front-end bugs come from IE, sometimes only showing up in certain versions of IE7.
2) Our mac developers either need a license for VMware fusion or multiple boxes/VMs to test IE 7/8/9 which of course behave very differently. Maintaining these boxes, Windows licenses, and VMware licenses adds additional stress to IT, and the context switching for our developers is expensive.
3) For the ones that do run a VM, we've had to upgrade their RAM so they could run the app and the VM at the same time. RAM is cheap, but its still money for each new mac-based frontend developer we have.
4) A lot of our distributed application message passing is actually done through the browser via client-side javascript. This makes it even more of a pain to test since automating this is difficult and expensive (more setup code, and capybara tests), and needs to be run in each supported browser.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
We deal with enough conditionals already. Besides, sharing the same API won't stop you from bumping into some bug that's present in one version and not the other. We'll have to deal with two codebases. Download and runtime speed are not a problem on the Desktop. They should have had the guts to admit that this is all about mobile. Their denial at the end of the post is symptomatic.
> Download and runtime speed are not a problem on the Desktop. When I'm stuck in the wilderness with nothing but an atom based netbook tethered to a patchy and expensive GPRS connection, I beg to differ. Anyway, it isn't just about your bandwidth to your desktop - if each user is transferring less it can be significant for the server-side. If they make proper efforts to maintain 1.9.x for a goodly amount of time the…
>When I'm stuck in the wilderness with nothing but an atom based netbook tethered to a patchy and expensive GPRS connection, I beg to differ.
That's not a Desktop. That's a cellphone conection and processing power that, by todays standards, reassembles a phone more than a laptop.
But even on mobible, latency is a much bigger problem than file size.
>"hitting a bug in one version but not the other" issue shouldn't be more significant than the current "hitting a bug in a third party library (jQuery) which I don't have the expertise to locate+fix" issue that we already have to consider.
All things being equal, you have twice as many chances of hitting a bug with two code bases than with one.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#187Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
We deal with enough conditionals already. Besides, sharing the same API won't stop you from bumping into some bug that's present in one version and not the other. We'll have to deal with two codebases. Download and runtime speed are not a problem on the Desktop. They should have had the guts to admit that this is all about mobile. Their denial at the end of the post is symptomatic.
If you don't like conditionals, then don't use them. Stick with 1.9 or 1.8 Download and runtime are absolutely a problem on the desktop. There will always be a decent amount of people on unreliable connections and mobile devices with slow processors
>Stick with 1.9 or 1.8
That's a terrible solution.
>unreliable connections and mobile devices with slow processors
Which are not Desktops, so I don't see your point.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't like conditionals, then don't use them. Stick with 1.9 or 1.8 Download and runtime are absolutely a problem on the desktop. There will always be a decent amount of people on unreliable connections and mobile devices with slow processors
> Stick with 1.9 or 1.8 That's a terrible solution. > unreliable connections and mobile devices with slow processors Which are not Desktops, so I don't see your point.
Why is it a terrible solution? What jQuery API features (that might be developed in 2.x) are missing that you need? The current API fulfils the purpose of the jQuery Project; many of the recent API changes have been syntactic sugar changes and I imagine most future ones will be as well.
>Which are not Desktops, so I don't see your point Oops... Well anyway, I know plenty of people who cannot get DSL or cable in their area and rely on spotty wireless connections
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#190I don't know if I can get behind this or not. I understand their desire but I don't see this as a viable option just yet. I'm not so concerned with 2.0 and 1.9 as you can load the right one, but what about when 2.1 comes out? Are they going to back-port all the new features to 1.9.1? If not then I now have a big fragmentation issue if I rely on anything specific to 2.1. Don't forget that IE 8 is the last version XP w…
This flat-out does not make sense. We all may hate IE6, 7, and 8, but a vast number of people still use it, and leaving them out just means alienating an audience and customers. Why do it? Spite?