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

141–150 of 226 posts

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#141

Post by uptown »

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…

I won't give you a name - but I know of a very large international company (hundreds off offices, tens of thousands of employees, etc.) that runs older versions of IE across much of their network. Some of it is budgets for testing newer versions. Some of it has to do with specific applications that are business-critical, but only work on older IE versions and haven't been updated / upgraded to run on new versions of modern browsers. It's easy to say "just upgrade" but large organizations just don't operate that way unfortunately.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#142

Post by darkandbrooding »

crazygringo wrote: post #127
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,…

Y'know, I hadn't even considered that your browser might already have a cached copy of JQuery because of a previous visit to some other site. Like the friend you mentioned, the idea of third-party hosting for a critical piece of infrastructure is a non-starter for me. If my site depends on X, I prefer (the illusion of) control over X.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#143

Post by darkandbrooding »

lessnonymous wrote: post #137
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…

It's not about being able to access 1.x in the long term from a CDN. The problem is whether it will still be supported. If there are bugs in 1.x, will they be fixed? Will 1.x support Chrome v40 and IE 15?

Thanks for the clarification. Although the JQuery team didn't announce any end date for support of 1.x, I appreciate the ticking clock implicit in the major version bump.

I suspect that a comment made by user Zangrief is right on the money - enterprise users will increasingly take over maintenance of the 1.x branch out of necessity.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#144

Post by pbreit »

DigitalSea wrote: post #138
crdoconnor wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Edit: Why all of the down-votes, is my response offensive? Because you described "1/3 of the internet" as "a miniscule proportion of ones' users", probably.

Then shouldn't my original comment be the one that gets down-voted which is where I originally said IE's market share is minuscule, not my response to someone else's comment? I standby what I said. Considering Google does not support versions of IE below 9, Google too deems 1/3 of the Internet to be a minuscule proportion of users if they're fine dropping support.

Your continuing to call 20-30% "minuscule" is more egregious, IMO.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#145

Post by geon »

tambourine_man wrote: post #65
dmethvin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if I seem cranky, but did you READ the blog post? jQuery 1.9 supports those browsers and the jQuery team still supports it. Do you have a problem with us supporting a second version that can be smaller, faster, and work in places other than obsolete browsers?

I do. The final 2.0.0 file is 12 percent smaller than the 1.9.1 file, thanks to the elimination of patches that were only needed for IE 6, 7, and 8. Dropping IE 6, 7 and 8 support for a 12% smaller file size while effectively forking your code base for the foreseeable future is a lousy decision. Increase complexity tremendously for what, 3-4 KB when gzipped?

The article also says they hoped to remove more, but early android browsers became "the weakest link" instead. Presumably, support for them will be dropped without much fanfare as soon as their market share goes below X %.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#146

Post by mkopinsky »

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…

I work at Montefiore Medical Center in The Bronx, NY. Much of what I do is building intranet web apps. About a year ago they upgraded (yes, upgraded) to IE7. We have 18,000 employees, but let's say we have 10,000 computers. Upgrading all of those computers, verifying that all of the hundreds of apps provided by dozens of vendors used in scores of departments is a huge and expensive project. Healthcare in NYC is a business that earns you a margin of - if you're lucky - 1%. It is difficult to justify the cost

Note that I'm not a decision maker - in fact, I'm not even in the IT department. Please don't try to argue this with me, as I may be totally wrong about what their decision factors even were. Personally, my life would be much easier if they would upgrade, but I can understand why they have not.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#147

Post by epmatsw »

skue wrote: post #134
epmatsw wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> At a hospital with modern software... That's one helluva qualifier when talking about hospitals. Our company creates web-based software for hospitals, and we have yet to talk to a customer who doesn't need IE7 support. (We draw the line at IE6.)

Interesting. We do software for larger hospitals that has some web-based elements and require IE 9+ or Chrome. I guess we're targeting different audiences.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#148

Post by josteink »

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

Make that Fortune 500s which when jQuery 2.0 is released next year needs to be running a OS which is EOLed by Microsoft with no support or security patches to be affected.

IOW: Cry me a river.

People made these exact arguments that people "require XP and MSIE8" and that they "can't upgrade" years ago, when Vista was released, then when Windows 7 was released and now with Windows 8's release.

Here's news for you: You've had 2 or 3 advance warnings from Microsoft that your IT platform will be obsoleted and unsupported and 2 non-ordinary support-extensions. You've had more than half a decade to plan and execute the migration.

If you haven't completed that migration yet and are still whining, you are incompetent as an IT manager. There is no other way to describe this. If you are still running XP, that is because of incompetence. No excuses.

XP is older than the very first release of Ubuntu. Microsoft has supported XP for longer than Ubuntu's entire existance. As a basis for comparison any version of Ubuntu is supported for 2 years and that's it. XP has been around for 12 years now, and will be supported for yet another year before support is finally dropped. Sometimes enough is enough.

This is a good move by jQuery to streamline their code-base. Sometimes you need to do the spring-cleaning if you want your code to be manageable and have any chance of effectively improving your product, and this is just that spring-cleaning.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#149

Post by ricardobeat »

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #13

I think what a lot of people are upset about here, is jQuery entered the web development scene as "the library that solved cross-browser compatibility issues". Now while IE 6 is an obvious one to drop, IE 7 is a little tougher, and IE 8 is down right impossible to drop at this time. I understand that jQuery wants to promote a modern framework, but people didn't adopt it for it's fancy features. They adopted it becaus…

IE7 is almost dead, falling below 1% almost everywhere, and IE8 is dying a quick death. Google dropped support for IE all it's webapps in November 2012.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#150

Post by mkopinsky »

DigitalSea wrote: post #138
crdoconnor wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Edit: Why all of the down-votes, is my response offensive? Because you described "1/3 of the internet" as "a miniscule proportion of ones' users", probably.

Then shouldn't my original comment be the one that gets down-voted which is where I originally said IE's market share is minuscule, not my response to someone else's comment? I standby what I said. Considering Google does not support versions of IE below 9, Google too deems 1/3 of the Internet to be a minuscule proportion of users if they're fine dropping support.

Your first comment can be excused as ignorance. Now you're being willfully stupid.
Post reply on HN