Did anyone read the post? 1.9 will still support ie6/7/8, so just use that for compatibility. Let's move the web forward. I still use XP at home and don't care because I use Firefox. So if grandma/grandpa and corporate america don't get all the new bells and whistles, they are probably used to it, because they don't have rounded corners, text-shadow and box-shadow on everything anyway. They probably won't even know what they are missing on that HP/Dell POS. :p
JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
201–210 of 237 posts
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#202Sorry, but this is a disaster. Dropping support for IE6 may be OK, IE7 is a bit too soon, but IE8? I haven't tested my stuff on IE6 and IE7 for a long time, but I still do it on IE8 everyday. It was released in 2009! And it's decent enough, PNG transparencies, etc. jQuery's main raison d'être might have gone out the window.
>[IE8] was released in 2009! Yep, it's ancient. Chrome and Firefox are on average about 3 weeks old. IE8 is over 50 times older. >jQuery's main raison d'être might have gone out the window. Normalization was just one part. It still provides a much nicer API. There are also events, AJAX, effects, and some useful helpers. [].slice.call(document.querySelectorAll('p')).forEach(function (el) {console.log(el);}); vs $('p')…
Um, when did we forget how to write our own abstractions? It’s not black and white, either jQuery or vanilla JS with no helpers.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#203Sorry, but this is a disaster. Dropping support for IE6 may be OK, IE7 is a bit too soon, but IE8? I haven't tested my stuff on IE6 and IE7 for a long time, but I still do it on IE8 everyday. It was released in 2009! And it's decent enough, PNG transparencies, etc. jQuery's main raison d'être might have gone out the window.
jQuery was never good at this. When I first used it on a project they had already drooped support for Safari 1.x, despite that being available version of Safari available for Mac OS X 10.4. I was, at the time, living with my girlfriend and a friend of hers, both of whom used 10.4 and Safari 1.x: it was honestly quite common among people who couldn't quite afford new computers. Regardless, when we sent the demo of our…
What have you been using instead?
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I dont have any experience developing for govt, so for all I know the barrier against installation of CF may be insurmountable. Have you ever tried? It really is extremely painless and would result in a net + in terms of security.
Definitely insurmountable in the environment of many of our users. They're doctors working with medical data, so IT has to certify anything new installed.
So they're stuck with IE6, because that was the latest & greatest when large custom web-based applications really took off, so they're all certified for IE6 only and would have to be replaced at enormous cost before the users can be allowed to upgrade (or install chromeframe, for example).
It's a big barrier.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's so much BS. Like supporting old browsers is that hard/expensive. Everyone keeps saying that, but I have never ever seen numbers to back it up. Letting it all blow up in the user's face is not an option to me. And I do business with publicity agencies, they don't give a fuck about this stuff, as far as they know everyone owns the latest macbook.
I say we all just start defaulting anything that isn't bleeding edge IE to the mobile experience. That'll sort em.
And the users in large institutions who aren't allowed to install or upgrade their browser will just have to suffer if they use your site.
Or they'll go with your competitor.
Obviously, if your users are all home users, this probably isn't a factor. If you want people using your site from the office, it might be.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
People will switch from IE when they have to. Firefox, Chrome, and Opera all run well on XP. As for corporate America, they'll wait it out as long as they can too. However, if forced, technology departments are quite capable of installing Chrome or Firefox. I don't feel sorry for corporations who have IE[6-8] only apps. I was there 10 years ago when people said that it only had to run in IE, when I said we should tes…
agreed. They'll only replace those systems when the expense of maintaining them is greater than re-writing. I'm 100% in favor of making it increasingly more painful for companies to hold back progress. I do have to say that my impression from comments that some devs don't actually comprehend the scope of the trouble for some of these companies. On the surface you might think it's just a lazy IT department who won't u…
Add in that they may be using these custom apps to handle medical data, or financial data, or something similar that can cost lives or staggering sums of money if a browser upgrade causes even subtle errors... so there's a time-consuming and very costly certification process that must happen even for rewritten software, on top of the cost of development.
And certification would need to happen again before any subsequent browser upgrades.
So I hate supporting IE6, but I'm working in health care, so I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be supporting IE6 for a while yet.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
For 2: Any reason why your developers can't use VirtualBox with the free IE-test VM images that Microsoft provides? I don't know if the license allows them to run on a non-MS OS, but you can at the very least have several of them run on a single box and enable RDP in VirtualBox.
That "single box" needs to be able to support enough instances for our entire development team. This is more hardware and IT maintenance costs. Also, if we are doing network maintenance and wifi goes down, developers have to stop working. The point is - even that solution costs time and money.
Sure, but why not Sauce Labs Scout + OnDemand? That was the whole reason we built it. I don't like running VM's on my machine, I prefer them to be perfectly maintained and run in the cloud.
Is there anywhere it fails to meet your teams needs? Genuinely curious if it's a product fail or a marketing problem.
Disclaimer: Used to work at Sauce Labs, not anymore.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#208I 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…
I agree, I can understand IE6 since not even ms supports it anymore but 7 and 8? Seems a bit drastic to me.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
1) Maybe it's a design problem, do you really have to provide the exact same experience to everyone?
2) As others have said, there are "free" (of course, there's a cost in setting up) alternatives.
3) Indeed, we bumped every iMac RAM here as well. It's very cheap, though.
4) Well, not really. Any logical piece of software can (and should) be isolated to run by itself. That's how you unit test them. This is the kind of thing that you build once, test everywhere and stop worrying about it until you have to change the set of features.
My point is: why don't we all serve a lo-fi version of our apps based on the features present in the current agent? This way we can stop worrying about release numbers once and for all. If nothing, it usually result in a more stable code base.
Re: JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9.
#210Sorry, but this is a disaster. Dropping support for IE6 may be OK, IE7 is a bit too soon, but IE8? I haven't tested my stuff on IE6 and IE7 for a long time, but I still do it on IE8 everyday. It was released in 2009! And it's decent enough, PNG transparencies, etc. jQuery's main raison d'être might have gone out the window.
The premise is that jQuery 1.9 and 2.0 are API-compatible, so you can do something like: New browsers will get a lighter download and a faster runtime. oldIE will still work with all the hacks required to make it work.
I can think of a lot of reasons this approach won't work well for most of the sites I work on (other than a few blogs).
1) Combining jQuery with other JavaScript at build time (to reduce HTTP requests). At built-time, we don't know which browser they're using. We'll end up with two assets (the combined version w/ jQuery 1.9 and the combined version w/ jQuery 2.0).
2) Testing costs. For larger sites it's not a trivial thing to test and support two different versions of jQuery. For any site that still needs to support IE8 (and 7 and 6), it will not be feasible to test and support two different versions of jQuery. As such, we'll never get the benefits of using jQuery 2.0 and would not be able to do so for many years.
3) Plugins will be written that only work for one of the two versions (1.9 or 2.0). This will divide the plugin ecosystem. Ideally, plugins should work for both, but many people will only test and support their plugins on one of the versions.