Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JQuery 2.0 Released

blog.jquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 226 posts

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#111

Post by ericd »

angersock wrote: post #80
ismarc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing an important part of this. There's a large number of companies whose web capabilities need to support people who use their website while working at the companies that have older versions of IE. The company I'm with has embedded video players on a large number of web retailer's pages (we're hiring a javascript+flash developer in Austin, TX right now, particularly around video players. If you're interest…

There's a large number of companies whose web capabilities need to support people who use their website while working at the companies that have older versions of IE. Like who? Honest question. I know that not all users currently have modern browsers (which is total bullshit, by the way--with free, open-source browsers as well as Chrome and the like, there is no excuse for this) but this isn't something we should tre…

It's pretty clear that you don't know many people who use IE8. What you're saying sounds nice in theory, but falls down in practice. Many people lack the knowledge of better browsers, or are simply afraid of changing, because they've learned how to use IE, and they don't want to learn a whole new set of routines. They don't use computers in the way you do, because they don't understand the underlying principles - they learn step by step how to do a task, and then they replay those steps every time, like an Excel macro. This is why, when something unexpected happens, they're helpless.

Switching browsers may break many of those macros, and at the very least, will be very uncomfortable for many.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#112

Post by angersock »

silverbax88 wrote: post #103
angersock wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a large number of companies whose web capabilities need to support people who use their website while working at the companies that have older versions of IE. Like who? Honest question. I know that not all users currently have modern browsers (which is total bullshit, by the way--with free, open-source browsers as well as Chrome and the like, there is no excuse for this) but this isn't something we should tre…

There are thousands of users in major banks and financial institutions which still use IE and have NO plans on moving forward anytime soon. None. I don't mean the users. I mean the companies. You really think the banks that LITERALLY control the world's economy are somehow going to be 'shamed' into upgrading their internet browsers? You might as well try shaming the moon into changing color. I don't mean to sound con…

Which companies? Give us some names--that's why I'm proposing this list.

We always, always hear the same threadbare stories about mythical magical enterprise customers that can't/won't upgrade, and the little tail wags the dog, and the life for the rest of us is made harder.

All this for a use case which is basically hearsay and rumors.

As for inexperienced developers--I'll go and say that the experience I've had of watching bad compilers and system headers and christ only knows what else force native code to get uglier and uglier and less maintainable are what motivate me to try and discourage the same mistakes in Happy Web Land.

The web is barely twenty years old, arguably much younger--let's at least try and avoid sins we don't have to commit.

Edit: Or, you know, downvote me without explanation. That's pretty cool too.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#113

Post by yuhong »

reeses wrote: post #79
angersock wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any list of companies that currently require old versions of IE? I know a lot of hospitals do, and people handwave banks and whatnot. If there was a big list of "These people still use old versions of IE", then we could: A. Properly shame/advertise for attack/avoid getting work from these people. B. Expose a dedicated market audience for compatibility-minded dev shops Either of these would seem to be a Good…

Go into a local small business with about [$|€|£]2-5m in turnover per year. A moderately successful veterinary practice comes to mind. They have applications that need to be managed by what is undoubtedly an outsourced IT service, very likely related to some other system (practice management, diagnostic hardware, goofy industry-specific file formats, accounting, back-office, etc.). They will stay on XP for ages becau…

>They will stay on XP for ages because it works with everything they bought when they last "modernized" their practice ten years ago.

AFAIK the only reason XP was supported for more than that was the Longhorn delays.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#114

Post by film42 »

stef25 wrote: post #29
themgt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the biggest projects on the web leading the way in throwing shitty old IE under the bus to help push the modern web forward. They're going to keep big-fixing 1.X so people stuck with IE6/7/8 can keep supporting it, but moving forward with 2.x for modern browsers makes their lives easier in the long run, and provides yet another coffin nail in Microsoft's attempt decade-old attempt to break the web.

They're not so much throwing IE under the bus as throwing developers under the bus that have fortune-500 clients that can only use IE. Some nerd (me) whining about their browser choice is really not going to make their IT director change policies. Granted, I can and will keep using 1.9

I think it will. Especially when you can say, "If we can drop IE 6/7/8 support, development costs will go down significantly." Remember, it's not just JS compatibility, think about all the CSS hacks you need to do to get your design just so. HTML 5 is another issue (I'm talking tag support). Requiring flash versions of your custom skinned player. There are so many factors we need to attach to old browsers, that it just makes sense to move forward. Maybe not right this second, but soon. And I think this is a great place to start.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#115

Post by angersock »

ericd wrote: post #111
angersock wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a large number of companies whose web capabilities need to support people who use their website while working at the companies that have older versions of IE. Like who? Honest question. I know that not all users currently have modern browsers (which is total bullshit, by the way--with free, open-source browsers as well as Chrome and the like, there is no excuse for this) but this isn't something we should tre…

It's pretty clear that you don't know many people who use IE8. What you're saying sounds nice in theory, but falls down in practice. Many people lack the knowledge of better browsers, or are simply afraid of changing, because they've learned how to use IE, and they don't want to learn a whole new set of routines. They don't use computers in the way you do, because they don't understand the underlying principles - the…

There are macros in IE8? Really?

Look, there are two camps: companies that refuse to run modern browsers, and individual users.

I posit that we should list the members of the former camp, and that we should educate the members of the latter camp. Changing from IE to Firefox to Chrome shouldn't be a big deal, and if we've only managed to instill idiot monkey-level tools usage in our users we have (as developers and human beings and tool-users!) failed.

You do not, do not want to encourage the intellectual sloth of these folks--it will come back to bite all of us.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#116

Post by coldtea »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #83
coldtea wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Third parties have been trying to throw shitty old IE under the bus for a long, long time and haven't had much success in doing so. On the contrary. Lots of big volume mainstream websites (including even Google properties) have stopped supporting IE6 and some even IE7 for years. For IE6 it has been at least 4 years since most sites stopped caring about it. (Heck, even Microsoft created a site to convince people to…

True, but it took a LONG time - IEs 6 and 7 were released in 2001 and 2006 respectively, so assuming your '4 years ago' stat is correct, that's still 3 years of waiting for a sweet spot of upgrades, by which time IE6 was 8 YEARS old. IE7 still gives me enough traffic (~5%) to require support, so that's a total of 4 active versions I need to cater for. I really hope adoption of latest IE speeds up, but I've been hopin…

I don't think 5% requires support.

1) Opportunity cost. Supporting them takes time and makes your code more bloated and less able to use cool new stuff without hacks and workarounds (and that cool new stuff can give you a competitive advantage to the other 95%).

2) This 5% is only gonna go down.

3) 5% is too small anyway.

4) There might be 5% of traffic, but how much is quality traffic? Depending on the site, a guy with the latest laptop, OS, browser and everything might be more likely to spend money, compared to some XP using guy that might have gotten there accidentally. This needs more search into your user data to tell.

5) Even if you want to still cater to IE6, you don't have to support it per se. You can just make it generally sure that its user can click around and see the pages, even if they lose a lot of formatting and cool options. I mean, don't even go for "progressive enhancement" stuff. Just let them be able to at least see the page, even if it looks like crap without the necessary css etc support.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#117

Post by timv »

speg wrote: post #43
spicyj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true. There were a handful of competing libraries (Prototype.js, Mootools, etc) and jQuery won out because people seemed to prefer its API.

I can only speak for myself, but IMO jQuery won because of their docs. I seem to remember having a hell of a time trying to get MooTools to work in the summer of '06, and finding docs to be of no help.

Likewise, I ditched Dojo for jQuery because of the docs.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#118

Post by pbhjpbhj »

as_if wrote: post #9
apendleton wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the idea has pretty much always been that jQuery 1.9 and 2.0 would be feature-comparable, just with different sizes and supported browsers. See http://blog.jquery.com/2012/06/28/jquery-core-version-1-9-an...

They hate IE SO much, they even made the drop a new major release. This is what I call commitment.

So Microsoft hate WinXP so much they made dropping support in MSIE a new major release?

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#119

Post by ericd »

angersock wrote: post #115
ericd wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear that you don't know many people who use IE8. What you're saying sounds nice in theory, but falls down in practice. Many people lack the knowledge of better browsers, or are simply afraid of changing, because they've learned how to use IE, and they don't want to learn a whole new set of routines. They don't use computers in the way you do, because they don't understand the underlying principles - the…

There are macros in IE8? Really? Look, there are two camps: companies that refuse to run modern browsers, and individual users. I posit that we should list the members of the former camp, and that we should educate the members of the latter camp. Changing from IE to Firefox to Chrome shouldn't be a big deal, and if we've only managed to instill idiot monkey-level tools usage in our users we have (as developers and hu…

Those *human macros (reread the first paragraph).

Get into education, then, but that's a separate discussion.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#120

Post by laurent123456 »

> If you want, you can serve 2.0 to newer browsers and 1.9 to older ones using our conditional comment trick

I'm really surprised they would suggest doing this. The two APIs are quite different since many functions from the 1.x branch have been removed in the 2.x or sometime behave differently (for instance `$("some bold text")` will be parsed as HTML in 1.x but considered a CSS selector in 2.x).

Basically, I really wonder what could be the benefit of using this kind of conditional comment trick.

Post reply on HN