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

121–130 of 226 posts

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#121

Post by darkandbrooding »

I've read through the 100+ comments that preceded me, and I must be missing something stupidly obvious. Thanks in advance to anyone who can enlighten me.

Can't you just host your own copy of JQuery? If your web app needs version x.y.whatever, is there some reason why you can't just host your own copy of the library on the same servers the provide the rest of your web content?

I understand the convenience of using some CDN's copy of JQuery, but I'm unsure why it's anything other than a convenience. Maybe it's about money: "It'll cost us an extra $X per month in bandwidth fees to host our own version of JQuery." Maybe it's about user experience: "By hosting JQuery on our own site we add 100ms to page load times."

To the people who seem most unhappy about the version bump, can you describe how hosting your own version of JQuery would complicate your lives? Just so there is no ambiguity, I'm asking from a point of ignorance, not snark. I would genuinely like to read the answers.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#122

Post by andyl »

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…

> Like who? Honest question.

I've got a county-government customer on IE8, with no plans to upgrade.

My workaround for them: ChromeFrame.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#123

Post by silverbax88 »

angersock wrote: post #112
silverbax88 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No one working at that level is going to disclose their customers and the technology agreements they have. That would be business suicide (and would ruin lives). Again, this isn't mom and pop shop level stuff.

But I will give you a clue. Go find a list of the top 10 biggest banks in the United States. It's almost all of them. Then go find the biggest credit card companies. It's most of them.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#124

Post by colemorrison »

So I find that the majority of people are missing a very LARGE improvement that I value far beyond any of the stated benefits by the jQuery team:

-One of the most popular libraries is dropping support for IE 6,7, and 8. Thus, yet another cornerstone of the web is going to push users forward and increase the chance that those miserable browsers will disappear.

The most disturbing thing I find is that there are developers that are DEFENDING existence for those older browsers. Are you masochists? Do you enjoy the headaches of fucking around with those??

"Oh but so many clients are still using them, and it writes off potential users!"

How can we ever expect for them to upgrade their damn browser unless the builders the web (developers, not just browsers) quit allowing them to rot in complacency????

Of course, there is a thing as going "too leading edge" and expecting "too much" from the user...but when the cornerstones (libs, browsers, etc) start pushing them forward - then we should embrace this change. Coding for the multi-browser/platform/device/version web is hard enough.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#125

Post by silverbax88 »

coldtea wrote: post #64
silverbax88 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have clients who still use IE 6. BIG clients - banks too big for me to name publicly. Millions of dollars in revenue and dozens of jobs' worth. Dropping them isn't an option.

Then don't drop them. This is for modern websites/services, not enterprise catering dinos.

I can do both. I'm not limited to only supporting small clients.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#126

Post by timjahn »

angersock wrote: post #112
silverbax88 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you ever walked into a Chase branch and noticed they're running IE as they browse through your bank account, and wonder why such insanely sensitive, secure information is being run through IE?

Find me a bank that doesn't run IE, for that matter. I'm a Chase customer, so I can only confirm them. But I honestly wonder how many banks don't run IE.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#127

Post by crazygringo »

darkandbrooding wrote: post #121

I've read through the 100+ comments that preceded me, and I must be missing something stupidly obvious. Thanks in advance to anyone who can enlighten me. Can't you just host your own copy of JQuery? If your web app needs version x.y.whatever, is there some reason why you can't just host your own copy of the library on the same servers the provide the rest of your web content? I understand the convenience of using som…

There is zero problem with hosting your own copy. Lots of people do.

The main advantage to using a CDN is that a single copy can be cached across multiple websites, meaning that the first time someone visits your site, there's a good chance your version of jQuery already sits on their computer. Plus, the Google CDN will often serve content faster than your own site. And, since jQuery is now so "integral" to websites, it almost seems silly to have to maintain a copy of it yourself.

But the main downside to using a CDN is that, CDN's have gone down before, and that means your site will stop working. Obviously, it doesn't happen often, but it happened once to a widely used site of a friend of mine, and he swore, never again will he reference jQuery on a CDN. I personally prefer to host myself too. (But not out of bandwidth savings, that just winds up being trivial.)

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#128

Post by acdha »

gcr wrote: post #51
jhack wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the post: "...we’ve got jQuery 1.x to handle older browsers and fully expect to support it for several more years."

Exactly. What does "several" mean? Are we talking two years? Five? A decade? Until jQuery changes their minds?

IE8 dropped under 10% for me last month. Several years seems fine to me.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#129

Post by acdha »

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…

IE7 is old enough that I would point users at all of Microsoft's “please upgrade” pages — if you deal with financial or personal information, it's worth doing just for the security benefits.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#130

Post by epmatsw »

angersock wrote: post #66
jeresig wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't work on jQuery any more but I (and I know many others on the jQuery team) all build web sites as part of their day jobs (and, thus, need to continuing supporting IE 8). It's going to be a very long time before support for the 1.x branch is dropped. But hopefully soon, death of IE 8 willing.

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…

You'd be surprised about hospitals. At a hospital with modern software, a lot of the browser based stuff they use actually runs through Citrix or something similar, so they're using IE9/10 or Chrome for the most part.
Post reply on HN