There are a couple of qualms I have with this article: 1. He's looking at Safari 9, a version that is not yet deployed anywhere, rather than Safari 7/8, which

There are a couple of qualms I have with this article: 1. He's looking at Safari 9, a version that is not yet deployed anywhere, rather than Safari 7/8, which are the versions that everyone knows and loathes. Yeah, if you move the target, then of course some criticisms will miss their mark. 2. Even ignoring version numbers, he's looking at the "best" Safari that exists: desktop Safari. iOS Safari is where the real nightmares are, and is the target of almost all of the complaints about Safari that he's supposedly refuting. Again, when refuting someone else's case, you have to refute their actual case, not an altered, easier-to-fight version of their case. 3. The case he's making is that Safari's not the worst because Edge is worse. Except that Edge is not 100% complete (it's more akin to the early days of Chrome: yes, you can use it, but it's a work in progress), is in fairly-transparent, visibly-active development, and is an "evergreen" (continuously self-updating) browser, unlike Safari, which only gets updated either with the OS or when there's an absolutely-critical-enough security hole. 4. His basis for comparison is number of features listed as "supported" on caniuse rather than standards-compliance, rendering consistency, actual usability of purportedly-complete APIs, and general how-bad-does-this-browser-screw-up-my-app. For example: iOS Safari supposedly supports "position: fixed" (which has been around basically forever), but in practice has significant rendering issues, particularly around when it decides to stop positioning things because the keyboard is present. 5. His initial premise (and, tellingly, his conclusion) is that people complain about Safari because people want to complain and poor Safari just happens to be the current target, rather than that Safari might have some actual problems that make web development painful.