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

181–190 of 226 posts

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#181

Post by democracy »

themgt wrote: post #14
igravious wrote: post #7

Serious question. Please hit me with a clue stick. Regarding 1.9, how can "old-IE compatibility often causes problems of its own" and "simplest way to support older browsers is to use jQuery 1.x on your site, since it works for all browsers." both be true at one and the same time?

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.

" throwing shitty old IE under the bus to help push the modern web forward."

probably instead throwing the vendors that don't want to support old IE...

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#182

Post by democracy »

josteink wrote: post #148
stef25 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

You do realize that jQuery is not going to change any of that?

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#183

Post by democracy »

film42 wrote: post #114
stef25 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

Why do you have to "drop IE support"? How about degrading your design?

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#184

Post by democracy »

jhack wrote: post #48
igravious wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As many versions as used by the audience that they serve I suppose; how is the choice up to him?

At the speed web development is moving, I don't see much sense in coddling browsers that are more than 2-3 years old.

So are you really going to tell your users to "back off" and upgrade?

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#185

Post by democracy »

nbouscal wrote: post #97
dave5104 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all depends on your end goals and your audience. I don't have #'s off the top of my head, but let's say IE8 accounted for 40% of browser usage across your visitors. But IE8 is old. Are you willing to say to 40% of your potentially paying customers "Sorry, but your browser sucks. We're not supporting you."? If you are, great. No coddling necessary. But for other people, they may not be comfortable with the percenta…

You wouldn't say it like that, I hope. You would say, “Here's a link to a browser upgrade that will allow you to enjoy the best product we can offer you. It's completely free, and takes only a few minutes to install!” Also, IE8 accounts for less than 10% of browser usage worldwide now, so the odds of a company having it be 40% are rather slim, unless they specifically target enterprise in which case they dug their ow…

Are you really going to give them better experience (IE8 vs whatever latest chrome)? What is it going to be?

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#186

Post by democracy »

nbouscal wrote: post #110
dave5104 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, of course not. I'm just trying to make the point that some companies may not be comfortable with whatever IE8 is at right now. I think you can substitute "IE8" for any browser, and "40%" for whatever that browser's current market share is. Coincidentally, I work in the multi-family housing industry, and one of the industry titans requires IE to use their product--which everyone uses--so we have ~82% IE share o…

That's a shitty situation to be in. Sounds like a great opportunity for someone to disrupt that industry titan, though.

What exactly is shitty about it? Old browsers can still display text, images and hyperlinks. There are millions of use-cases perfectly covered by them.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#187

Post by mattstreet »

EnderMB wrote: post #165
coldtea wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is what worries me. You only need to spend an hour on HN or Reddit to see that web devs couldn't care less about legacy browsers, even when most businesses need to support them. As I wrote, even if the whole core team insists on going 2.0 only at some point (high unlikely), it's not like it needs any highly technical skills for interested people to jump in and maintain 1.9. > I support the decision to fork jQu…

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, and I don't think it's really a problem. Hell, if it is it's not a problem to use both libraries, and to serve 1.x to those using older browsers. It's just a shift in the core mentality of what people view jQuery as. Many of us use jQuery because it works, regardless of what browser a user is on. For a lot of others, jQuery IS JavaScript. If they want to do something on their sit…

I think we'll get a lot less from the open source community if they think they have to support all legacy crap for all time. Eventually there comes a time to move on.

We're just arguing about if its time yet. People can still keep using IE 6/7 for the shitty inhouse apps written for it by their company a decade ago, and use a damn modern browser for everything else.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#188

Post by oatmealsnap »

geon wrote: post #145
tambourine_man wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 %.

Fucking android, man. I would gladly include support for IE5.5 if I could drop Android 2.x.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#189

Post by talmand »

Robin_Message wrote: post #171
EnderMB wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, and I don't think it's really a problem. Hell, if it is it's not a problem to use both libraries, and to serve 1.x to those using older browsers. It's just a shift in the core mentality of what people view jQuery as. Many of us use jQuery because it works, regardless of what browser a user is on. For a lot of others, jQuery IS JavaScript. If they want to do something on their sit…

> This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Since open source is free and open, it really can't fuck you †. You can however screw yourself by relying on it to do your work for you. As you say, few people have the skills, time and desire to fix these sorts of problems, and that means you can't rely on open source to fix them for you. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this called "money…

I like how you denied the "fuck you with a smile" response with the very "fuck you with a smile" response he was complaining about.

Re: JQuery 2.0 Released

#190

Post by nbouscal »

democracy wrote: post #186
nbouscal wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a shitty situation to be in. Sounds like a great opportunity for someone to disrupt that industry titan, though.

What exactly is shitty about it? Old browsers can still display text, images and hyperlinks. There are millions of use-cases perfectly covered by them.

For starters, users expect modern-looking websites. That includes users on old browsers, thanks to the amount of bending over backwards done in the web industry to provide those users with as much of the modern browsing experience as possible. If you serve up a page looking like the c2.com wiki to a non-technical user, they're not going to be too happy about it.

Far more so than that, though, what's shitty about having to support IE 6-8 is the complete lack of consistency. Even if you aren't doing anything fancy, you have to spend a hell of a lot of dev time if you want things to look the same across browsers when they're included. Hours and hours of wasted time is pretty shitty, especially when the work involved is so aggravating and, from a creative point of view, utterly pointless.

In effect, your question is like asking what would be shitty about developing apps for a 10-year-old Palm Pilot. There are millions of use-cases perfectly covered by those too, but that doesn't mean an iPhone app developer is going to want to spend time porting his apps to one.

Post reply on HN