Live data from Hacker News

Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

mir.aculo.us

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

#11
post #4

I use both Safari and Firefox for my web development. Safari's web inspector has a nicer user interface for javascript debugging, but Firebug has better support for editing CSS on the fly.

It took me awhile to figure this out, but if you double click on the element styling you want to add additional CSS to (for example, the right column shows #content p has "color:#bbb;", double click on the "color:#bbb" part), add semicolons and the new style after the old one. (with the example the single line textbox should have "color:#bbb;padding:2em;") It'll correctly parse and add the new styling.

Re: Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

#12
I'm developing a web service that spits out json. I dropped Safari immediately because it automatically downloads anything that is application/json, whereas Firefox will display it and syntax highlight it with the JSONView plugin [http://ajaxian.com/archives/jsonview-json-browser-from-withi...].

Despite the great improvements Safari has made with respect to its developer tools, it can't top Firefox's amazing third-party plugin selection.

Re: Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

#13
I don't really find these arguments compelling.

Using the Acid3 test in this context is misleading. Acid3 tests a random selection features to ensure they work corrrectly. In this case, Firefox 3.5 fails on 7 of the tests and 5 of these are due to SMIL (pretty much SVG animation) and SVG fonts. They are obscure features, and don't provide a compelling reason to choose Safari over Firefox, least of all for development where you won't be able to use those features in the real world until other browsers implement them. Whatsmore, in designing Acid3, Hixie deliberately picked on browser bugs so the test didn't favour one vendor, irrespective of how they effect the real world - taking a single number out of context and point at that to prove the innate superiority of one browser over another, or that one browser follows "better standards", is incredibly simplistic, let along drawing conclusions that sites will be easier to port because of it. At worst, all it could tell you is that one vendor is focusing on passing a test and another isn't.

I don't really see the pre-optimisation as a real-world issue, and I seriously doubt bugs creep in through it. It feels very much like somebody making a problem out of nothing.

All projects have long niggles and bugs that have been there since the dawn of time. The fact that Firefox has bugs spanning years is more of a sign that the Mozilla project has been around for years than inehrent tardiness.

I also don't really understand the conclusion that "OS X is the only system that allows me to test all major browsers side-by-side by means of virtualization software". In actuality, if testing is your priority, then Windows would probably be the platform of choice as it's the only platform that can run all the major browsers (IE6, IE7, IE8, Firefox, Safari and Chrome) natively. Linux can also virtualise all the browsers not available natively through virtualisation of Windows, no different from Mac OS X.

Re: Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

#15

Micro-Optimizations are bad? That is just a load of shit. If you can prove that Firefox's optimizations actually make incorrect results in any way, I am 100% behind whoever claims that micro optimizations are bad. However by firefox making them it means that I don't have to worry about the nitty gritty details about what order of instructions will perform better without changing the code. Or things like loop unrollin…

Micro-optimizations aren't bad for users, but they can be bad when you're debugging. The source code you wrote is not necessarily the source code that Firefox displays to you.

Re: Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

#16
OK, maybe I'm stupid or slow, but there's something I just don't get about "browser wars".

Exactly where does it say that HTML, CSS, & Javascript has to be source code? If browser differences cause you so much grief, why don't you just treat whatever goes out to the client as "object code" of your own engine.

That engine would have to create a different page for each browser that you decided to support. Sure, it would be 4 times the work for every page, but that's work done by your engine, not you. Browser differences are accomodated through maintenance to your engine, not every page or library.

IE is not going away any time soon, so your output better be able to handle it's DOM. While you're at it, take a look at your user's resolution as well, and serve it the way they want to see it, not what you decided is best. No one likes horizontal scrolling or white space on the edges.

Re: Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

#18
post #9
post #5

Except that Safari has not been released for the operating system that I do web development under. So no.

According to the author that just means that you are using the wrong OS for web development, because despite how the world wide web is supposed to be platform independent, there is only one OS for web development . Besides a few profiling tools, his list of arguments seems to boil down to "things are prettier in Safari". Maybe it's just me, but that's really not my number one feature when looking at development tools…

Safari's available for Windows and the Mac. That means that 99% of computer users can use Safari.

Since when was "things are prettier" a bad thing? I do extensive Windows testing using browsers, and Safari's rendering engine is leagues ahead of everything else, its developments tools are more polished than Firebug and easier to figure out, and it's one of only two browsers that fully supports HTML 5. Firefox renders things shittily (even on the Mac, which has possibly the best rendering engine out there available for all apps by default, it fails Acid 3 at the moment, and while Firebug's great for some things, at other things it fails hard.

Re: Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

#19
The whole "This is the best thing EVAR!" articles really need to die.

In general the "best" tool is whatever one is best for the current job. Fortunately in the Webdev world our tools are free and easily accessible.

I personally use Safari, Chrome, Firebug AND IE8 (seriously, the built-in developer tools are actually decent!). Usually I start with Firebug, and if I run into a small issue instead of wasting time trying to fix the tool in that case I just try another tool. Usually one of the tools will handle the case with no problems and I can continue debugging/developing my core project instead of debugging the tool.

Re: Why everyone should use Safari for rich web development

#20
post #16

OK, maybe I'm stupid or slow, but there's something I just don't get about "browser wars". Exactly where does it say that HTML, CSS, & Javascript has to be source code? If browser differences cause you so much grief, why don't you just treat whatever goes out to the client as "object code" of your own engine. That engine would have to create a different page for each browser that you decided to support. Sure, it woul…

That's an interesting idea. The problem with it is that it takes a very long time and, depending on the OS being used to develop, would be a pain to work with. I'd have to be in Windows constantly to test the IE pages as I built them, and since there are 3 separate Internet Explorers I'd probably have to build 3 separate pages. If you combine both browser usage and resolution detection, suddenly I've got to make a dozen pages for every page on my web site, which is time consuming and not exactly a comprehensive approach either.

This approach works for the iPhone, which is standardized completely, but not for the complex and varying desktop browser scene.

Post reply on HN