5 ms·

Most modern browsers are gunning hard for full support. Here is the best breakdown: https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ https://kangax.github.io/compat-

by dc2 11y ago

Most modern browsers are gunning hard for full support. Here is the best breakdown: https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ That said, it will be a long time before you can write vanilla ES6 without transpilation and publish it, for the same reason that many sites still sadly support IE<=8.

glhaynes 11y ago
many sites still sadly support IE<=8 I'm curious: how much have "evergreen" browsers changed this? Do developers typically target Chrome from a few months ago? Two years ago? Just "today"? Maybe a better way to put it: if you only cared about Chrome, how long would you wait after a new feature was introduced to start using it?
- quarterto 11y ago
  Well, IE8 is the most recent version that's supported on Windows XP, which is still used in a distressingly large amount of corporate environments. There's also still a load of corporate IT on Vista and 7 that won't upgrade past IE8 because reasons. IE9 and above is effectively evergreen, and Edge explicitly is, but we're gonna have a load of people stuck on IE8 for a while to come.
  - mordocai 11y ago
    I don't know about IE9 being "effectively evergreen" but I can say that the only browser specific bugs we've had to deal with recently have been IE9 so I wouldn't consider it on the same level as IE10 and IE11. IE9 is the oldest browser we support, and soon we won't support it either.
- Nadya 11y ago
  Chrome/Firefox/Safari auto-update unless a user disables autoupdates which is atypical. As such, most devs will only target the most up-to-date version and maybe a single version back (which if something breaks in a single version back, you're already using bleeding edge stuff and probably don't care...) Few devs care for older support unless they're working on enterprise, are masochists, or really really really care about supporting 0.00000001% [0] of their users because they care that much (and more power to them!!) Most devs can point to Microsoft and say "Look, even the guys who created it are no longer supporting it." as an excuse to not support it themselves. I frequently do this when asked to support Safari 5... on Windows. Apple doesn't support it - neither do I. If you work with say.. Healthcare clients you often need to support back to IE7 or even IE6 because that is what they use internally.... [0] I mean to say "practically zero, but not zero percent".
ilkkao 11y ago
Basically when IE11 and old Android browsers can be ignored. Even Windows 10 ships with with IE11. I guess it will take several years before IE11 market share is <2-3%. Still, it will be a glorious day.
jnbiche 11y ago
Sadly, looking at that table, it's clear that Safari is the one dragging their feet. Full support for ES6 in the latest Chrome, FF, and Edge, but very poor support in the latest Safari. Apple recognizes that the Web poses a threat to their business model (although I think it's not as big as they fear, after all, how much of their profits come from the app store). This is why I am skeptical they will support WebAssembly in the end. After all, it will be possible to compile ES6 to WebAssembly just as much as any other language. I'm open to other suggestions for why Safari has become essentially the IE6 of our time, but pure business strategy is the only one I can come up with (which is fair, since Apple is a business after all).
- eknkc 11y ago
  They are getting a little bit better, transparent about new features lately. https://webkit.org/status/ https://webkit.org/status/ WebAssembly is listed as in development.
- cedricr 11y ago
  WebKit Nightly gets a 98% on that table.
- evanriley 11y ago
  I guess were in luck then. Apple recently released the Safari Technology Preview version of Safari.[0]. And if you open the ES6 support page in the post you replied to it shows support for 98% of the features. Supposedly the STP version is getting updated every 2 weeks, so lets hope that that also transitions to the non-developer version of Safari. [0] https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology-preview/ https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology-preview/
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Sadly, looking at that table, it's clear that Safari is the one dragging their feet. Full support for ES6 in the latest Chrome, FF, and Edge, but very poor support in the latest Safari. Actually Safari (well, Webkit), in beta, is the closest to full ES6 support of all current browsers -- down to 98% or so. It's just that Safari has a release only once or twice a year. But when it has, suddenly everybody on OS X/iOS using Safari would get all that stuff at once. (And recently they started a public beta builds program that might see them releasing new versions much sooner). >Apple recognizes that the Web poses a threat to their business model And with that information above, can we put this age old conspiracy theory to rest? Apple had long had the best mobile browser when Android still had the horrible "Android Browser". They regularly added all kinds of features that benefit apps (e.g. the canvas, css animations, several API to access native mobile features, etc.), and they continuously improve it (see this 98% ES6 support). For a company that "fears web apps" Apple not only promoted them to developers (before and after they created their native app frameworks and app store), not only has extensive documentation and how to's for best mobile experiences on their dev pages, but also has seen that Safari webkit based apps have traditionally been a better experience than Chrome based web apps on Android. Even today, it's faster, and more memory/cpu/battery efficient on mobile than Chrome is on Android. https://blog.runspired.com/2016/03/25/the-chrome-distortion-chrome-alters-our-expectations-in-highly-negative-ways/ https://blog.runspired.com/2016/03/25/the-chrome-distortion-... Safari was only held back because it's not a huge priority for Apple -- not because of some fear that web apps will eat their app store lunch. After all, web apps are difficult to monetize (no credit cards at hand), people expect most of them to be free, have a subpar experience for anything more demanding compared to bare metal languages, and don't integrate that well with native APIs anywhere (iOS, Android, Desktop, etc), as they have to run in a more restricted sandbox than native apps do (and of course somebody has to continuously porting all the native APIs, and at a great common denominator at that, since they also need to be portable).

by dc2 11y ago

glhaynes 11y ago

many sites still sadly support IE<=8 I'm curious: how much have "evergreen" browsers changed this? Do developers typically target Chrome from a few months ago? Two years ago? Just "today"? Maybe a better way to put it: if you only cared about Chrome, how long would you wait after a new feature was introduced to start using it?

quarterto 11y ago
Well, IE8 is the most recent version that's supported on Windows XP, which is still used in a distressingly large amount of corporate environments. There's also still a load of corporate IT on Vista and 7 that won't upgrade past IE8 because reasons. IE9 and above is effectively evergreen, and Edge explicitly is, but we're gonna have a load of people stuck on IE8 for a while to come.
- mordocai 11y ago
  I don't know about IE9 being "effectively evergreen" but I can say that the only browser specific bugs we've had to deal with recently have been IE9 so I wouldn't consider it on the same level as IE10 and IE11. IE9 is the oldest browser we support, and soon we won't support it either.
Nadya 11y ago
Chrome/Firefox/Safari auto-update unless a user disables autoupdates which is atypical. As such, most devs will only target the most up-to-date version and maybe a single version back (which if something breaks in a single version back, you're already using bleeding edge stuff and probably don't care...) Few devs care for older support unless they're working on enterprise, are masochists, or really really really care about supporting 0.00000001% [0] of their users because they care that much (and more power to them!!) Most devs can point to Microsoft and say "Look, even the guys who created it are no longer supporting it." as an excuse to not support it themselves. I frequently do this when asked to support Safari 5... on Windows. Apple doesn't support it - neither do I. If you work with say.. Healthcare clients you often need to support back to IE7 or even IE6 because that is what they use internally.... [0] I mean to say "practically zero, but not zero percent".

ilkkao 11y ago

Basically when IE11 and old Android browsers can be ignored. Even Windows 10 ships with with IE11. I guess it will take several years before IE11 market share is <2-3%. Still, it will be a glorious day.

jnbiche 11y ago

Sadly, looking at that table, it's clear that Safari is the one dragging their feet. Full support for ES6 in the latest Chrome, FF, and Edge, but very poor support in the latest Safari. Apple recognizes that the Web poses a threat to their business model (although I think it's not as big as they fear, after all, how much of their profits come from the app store). This is why I am skeptical they will support WebAssembly in the end. After all, it will be possible to compile ES6 to WebAssembly just as much as any other language. I'm open to other suggestions for why Safari has become essentially the IE6 of our time, but pure business strategy is the only one I can come up with (which is fair, since Apple is a business after all).

eknkc 11y ago
They are getting a little bit better, transparent about new features lately. https://webkit.org/status/ https://webkit.org/status/ WebAssembly is listed as in development.
cedricr 11y ago
WebKit Nightly gets a 98% on that table.
evanriley 11y ago
I guess were in luck then. Apple recently released the Safari Technology Preview version of Safari.[0]. And if you open the ES6 support page in the post you replied to it shows support for 98% of the features. Supposedly the STP version is getting updated every 2 weeks, so lets hope that that also transitions to the non-developer version of Safari. [0] https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology-preview/ https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology-preview/
coldtea 11y ago
>Sadly, looking at that table, it's clear that Safari is the one dragging their feet. Full support for ES6 in the latest Chrome, FF, and Edge, but very poor support in the latest Safari. Actually Safari (well, Webkit), in beta, is the closest to full ES6 support of all current browsers -- down to 98% or so. It's just that Safari has a release only once or twice a year. But when it has, suddenly everybody on OS X/iOS using Safari would get all that stuff at once. (And recently they started a public beta builds program that might see them releasing new versions much sooner). >Apple recognizes that the Web poses a threat to their business model And with that information above, can we put this age old conspiracy theory to rest? Apple had long had the best mobile browser when Android still had the horrible "Android Browser". They regularly added all kinds of features that benefit apps (e.g. the canvas, css animations, several API to access native mobile features, etc.), and they continuously improve it (see this 98% ES6 support). For a company that "fears web apps" Apple not only promoted them to developers (before and after they created their native app frameworks and app store), not only has extensive documentation and how to's for best mobile experiences on their dev pages, but also has seen that Safari webkit based apps have traditionally been a better experience than Chrome based web apps on Android. Even today, it's faster, and more memory/cpu/battery efficient on mobile than Chrome is on Android. https://blog.runspired.com/2016/03/25/the-chrome-distortion-chrome-alters-our-expectations-in-highly-negative-ways/ https://blog.runspired.com/2016/03/25/the-chrome-distortion-... Safari was only held back because it's not a huge priority for Apple -- not because of some fear that web apps will eat their app store lunch. After all, web apps are difficult to monetize (no credit cards at hand), people expect most of them to be free, have a subpar experience for anything more demanding compared to bare metal languages, and don't integrate that well with native APIs anywhere (iOS, Android, Desktop, etc), as they have to run in a more restricted sandbox than native apps do (and of course somebody has to continuously porting all the native APIs, and at a great common denominator at that, since they also need to be portable).