DO Not USE: Chrome, Firefox and Edge

I'm sure this is causing some people on HN real, excruciating pain. However, this application was built according to the standards of its day, and I don't know that it's so unreasonable to expect them to hire at 6 figures a developer for no "real" benefit.

And, the "IE" of today could be the "Chrome" of tomorrow. I don't like this situation (does anyone?). I wonder if for CRUD apps like this, it'd be beneficial to have a limited subset stack guaranteed for long term ABI compatibility, similar to CoreOS for binary runtime environments?*

* of course, this is just one of those many "wouldnt it be nice to have" things.

Re: DO Not USE: Chrome, Firefox and Edge

#5

Post by ChuckMcM » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:17 PM UTC

Sad of course, and something you will see a lot of. Some company hires out the development of its web presence to a contractor. The web moves on but the web site still works if you match up the tech with it that was current at the time it was developed. So rather than pay another contractor to update your already "working" web site the bean counters say "Just put up a message telling people what they have to do to make it work."

Re: DO Not USE: Chrome, Firefox and Edge

#6

Post by leephillips » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

tekklloneer wrote: post #4

I'm sure this is causing some people on HN real, excruciating pain. However, this application was built according to the standards of its day, and I don't know that it's so unreasonable to expect them to hire at 6 figures a developer for no "real" benefit. And, the "IE" of today could be the "Chrome" of tomorrow. I don't like this situation (does anyone?). I wonder if for CRUD apps like this, it'd be beneficial to ha…

If the "application" (a web site) were built according to standards it wouldn't matter what browser we used to access it.

Re: DO Not USE: Chrome, Firefox and Edge

#7

Post by leephillips » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:26 PM UTC

I'm pretty sure I had to use this site to get my DUNS number a few years ago, and I know I didn't use any version of I.E. So just because the warning is there, doesn't mean to have to take it seriously.

Re: DO Not USE: Chrome, Firefox and Edge

#8

Post by DKnoll » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:26 PM UTC

"We use only Internet Explorer 9... for security reasons."

Re: DO Not USE: Chrome, Firefox and Edge

#9

Post by allendoerfer » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

tekklloneer wrote: post #4

I'm sure this is causing some people on HN real, excruciating pain. However, this application was built according to the standards of its day, and I don't know that it's so unreasonable to expect them to hire at 6 figures a developer for no "real" benefit. And, the "IE" of today could be the "Chrome" of tomorrow. I don't like this situation (does anyone?). I wonder if for CRUD apps like this, it'd be beneficial to ha…

I have built websites when 6 was the latest IE version and can assure you, that this website was not built according to the standards of its days

Re: DO Not USE: Chrome, Firefox and Edge

#10

Post by grawlinson » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

oxide wrote: post #3

Does it require a java applet?

Funnily enough, a public internet service (phone relay for Deaf people) in my country is a Java applet.

It hasn't worked since September 2015, when Mozilla/Google stopped supporting Java in the browser.

I've been trying to get in touch with the vendor to see when they will come up with a HTML5 solution, but nobody will talk to me about it. Disgusting behaviour.