6 ms·

I side with Google on this one. IMO we should be breaking JavaScript more often, especially in the name of performance, to make people use less JS and simpler J

I side with Google on this one. IMO we should be breaking JavaScript more often, especially in the name of performance, to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites.

pvdebbe 9y ago
Except that Firefox LTS and other minority browsers suffer. I already use a couple sites that disregard all old Firefox compatibilities and use JS that break things up
- deno 9y ago
  How does this affect Firefox LTS? It doesn’t.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Devs frequently assume "Chrome", because that's what they use. So, passing an unexpected argument to addEventListener will break LTS releases.
    - deno 9y ago
      This has nothing to do with making event listeners passive by default. If you don’t do feature detection then of course your website will not be backwards compatible. If you care about backward compatibility there exists a polyfill for this functionality.
      - falcolas 9y ago
        In saying that "Devs assume Chrome", I'm asserting that they do not do feature detection. However, that does not absolve Chrome of breaking backwards compatibility, workaround or not. Tossing the responsibility of dealing with their breaking changes back on the developer (with little notice) is what caused this article in the first place.
        deno 9y ago
        If Chrome shipped with opt-out UI option to disable janky scrolling, would it be any better? Web is not a static target. Being afraid to break things gets you a decade of Flash websites. Things that are important will be maintained, and things that aren’t… well good riddance. Personally, I think we are way past due HTML6. A sort of Vulkan-like platform for Web[1]. HTML5 should be build on top of this next-gen low level platform. That’s the way forward if Web wants to remain competitive. Otherwise in 5 years we’ll all be writing Android Instant apps. [1] https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto
        gsnedders 9y ago
        > A sort of Vulkan-like platform for Web[1] Note that this is essentially what Houdini is for CSS.
        deno 9y ago
        Houdini + WASM combo has the potential to be (say it like Trump/Bernie) HUUUGE. I think it’s really exciting.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  I agree that Firefox is the one that suffers here. It should have been coordinated, but still agressive.
- porfirium 9y ago
  If you use a very old version of your browser I'm sure you expect many things to break.
ivanbakel 9y ago
Maybe, but the really heinous decision is digitally altering how websites get delivered to the user to make your own product look better. Even if the newer listener form had been around for several years, it would be unacceptable to essentially try to decree a new design pattern by taking websites hostage for browser performance reasons. Consider that, to the user, these are all seen as website problems. Breaking Javascript with consensus is great - breaking designs without blame is a slap in the face to web developers.
boramalper 9y ago
> IMO we should be breaking JavaScript more often, especially in the name of performance, to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites. Though not by pushing it down people's throats in a backwards-incompatible way.
- acobster 9y ago
  I don't understand your argument? You seem to agree "we should be breaking JavaScript" but you're against backwards-incompatibility...which is just a way of saying "breaking JavaScript."
  - boramalper 9y ago
    I agreed on this part: > to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites
optimuspaul 9y ago
except now I encounter broken sites all the time because Chrome is not my preferred browser. I think google is in the wrong and doing everyone a disservice. This is a step backwards.
- zlynx 9y ago
  I generally use Firefox myself. What I think is hilarious is that a lot of sites are half-broken by my NoScript settings, but I never realized they had a preference for Chrome because that code doesn't even run.
eknkc 9y ago
Great idea. Why stop there? I say let's make "if" conditions randomly work on false values 1/1000th of the time. That will teach them.
- jhasse 9y ago
  We kinda have this already: one in every 1000th JavaScript website breaks the back button.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  You're being sarcastic, but this is a great idea. Let's do it.
  - todd3834 9y ago
    You have an interesting point of view. Why do you feel this way?
    - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
      I think JavaScript is largely a pox on the web. I hate almost every website I come across today. I just try to ignore all of the bullshit for as long as it takes to consume the actual content, and 95% of the bullshit is possible thanks to JavaScript.
      - kowdermeister 9y ago
        Do you think if JS weren't available advertisers and marketers wouldn't try everything to shake some $ off your pocket? You would be pissed the same way. Also if it weren't JS, would it make a difference if the bullshit is created by lisp, java or erlang?
        Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
        It it were lisp, java, or erlang I'd still be pissed. The web should not have a client-side scripting language.
peterwwillis 9y ago
There are no more websites. There are applications, delivered on applications platforms, using css, html, and js as programming languages. Chrome is the application platform, and Google is the company shipping it. Like all application platforms, the interests of company who designs it always come first. Let us return to a moment to the WWW's ripe vintage of 1995, when Netscape Communications Corporation released a browser which had 3/4 of the browser market share within a year of release. Their product was advertised as a consistent universal interface to the web. They created custom features for their product, such as SSL, and JavaScript. But many of the features were released to outdo its main competitor, Microsoft, who could dedicate far more resources to development (they had so much cash they didn't even need to charge for the browser!). Netscape Communicator attempted to be a groupware solution combining multiple products to provide a complete solution for office and enterprise needs. But the design was too monolithic and complicated, and development was eventually halted. Ever since then, many organizations have attempted to build complete groupware solutions, but have been weighed down by the difficulty of developing such a complex suite of applications. And so came the future. As the web's technologies progressed, so did the capability of content delivered through a "standard" web browser. Even though browsers have traded back and forth over who supports what, most of the time the browser with the majority market share holds all the cards. As long as that browser works the same on multiple platforms, they don't need to worry about cross-browser compatibility, because that isn't their goal. Netscape's original goal was to kill Mosaic, and they did that in spades. Today, Google provides a mostly-complete groupware solution, delivered on its favorite application platform: its own web browser. The costs of developing and shipping the software to end users are much lower than traditional native apps, and they increasingly control more and more of the pipeline, even to the actual computer (Chromebooks are designed to cement Google's ownership of computing resources, freeing them from the constraints of other vendors' platforms). They not only don't want you to have "less JS and simpler JS on a website", they don't want you to run a website. They want you to provide an application which runs on their application platform. In service of that goal, they have developed dozens of web technologies designed to further their own application platform, just like the Netscape of old. If they have to break compatibility with other browsers to do it, that's fine with them. The bizarre thing is breaking existing websites on their own browser. If you can't browse the web reliably you'll stop using their browser, and then their app platform and apps are in danger of becoming obsolete.
nialv7 9y ago
You know who is a big user of JS? Who is using more, and more complex JS on their websites? Google. Google is also the pusher of some of the WebAPIs that will give browsers more access to your system (e.g. WebUSB [1]) Do you think Google is breaking JS to make themselves using less JS? [1]: https://wicg.github.io/webusb/ https://wicg.github.io/webusb/
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  Of course I don't think that. But I recognize this move by Google as beneficial to my own goals, namely getting JavaScript off of the web.
  - cvsh 9y ago
    Congratulations on your opinion! You are free to disable JavaScript on your own browser and be rid of it forever. Meanwhile, in the real world, JavaScript is never "getting off the web".
ksk 9y ago
You mean like eliminating useless google scripts from wasting your mobile battery/CPU? Somehow, those keep getting complex and wasteful.

I side with Google on this one. IMO we should be breaking JavaScript more often, especially in the name of performance, to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites.

pvdebbe 9y ago

Except that Firefox LTS and other minority browsers suffer. I already use a couple sites that disregard all old Firefox compatibilities and use JS that break things up

deno 9y ago
How does this affect Firefox LTS? It doesn’t.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Devs frequently assume "Chrome", because that's what they use. So, passing an unexpected argument to addEventListener will break LTS releases.
  - deno 9y ago
    This has nothing to do with making event listeners passive by default. If you don’t do feature detection then of course your website will not be backwards compatible. If you care about backward compatibility there exists a polyfill for this functionality.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      In saying that "Devs assume Chrome", I'm asserting that they do not do feature detection. However, that does not absolve Chrome of breaking backwards compatibility, workaround or not. Tossing the responsibility of dealing with their breaking changes back on the developer (with little notice) is what caused this article in the first place.
      - deno 9y ago
        If Chrome shipped with opt-out UI option to disable janky scrolling, would it be any better? Web is not a static target. Being afraid to break things gets you a decade of Flash websites. Things that are important will be maintained, and things that aren’t… well good riddance. Personally, I think we are way past due HTML6. A sort of Vulkan-like platform for Web[1]. HTML5 should be build on top of this next-gen low level platform. That’s the way forward if Web wants to remain competitive. Otherwise in 5 years we’ll all be writing Android Instant apps. [1] https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto
        gsnedders 9y ago
        > A sort of Vulkan-like platform for Web[1] Note that this is essentially what Houdini is for CSS.
        deno 9y ago
        Houdini + WASM combo has the potential to be (say it like Trump/Bernie) HUUUGE. I think it’s really exciting.
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
I agree that Firefox is the one that suffers here. It should have been coordinated, but still agressive.
porfirium 9y ago
If you use a very old version of your browser I'm sure you expect many things to break.

ivanbakel 9y ago

Maybe, but the really heinous decision is digitally altering how websites get delivered to the user to make your own product look better. Even if the newer listener form had been around for several years, it would be unacceptable to essentially try to decree a new design pattern by taking websites hostage for browser performance reasons. Consider that, to the user, these are all seen as website problems. Breaking Javascript with consensus is great - breaking designs without blame is a slap in the face to web developers.

boramalper 9y ago

> IMO we should be breaking JavaScript more often, especially in the name of performance, to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites. Though not by pushing it down people's throats in a backwards-incompatible way.

acobster 9y ago
I don't understand your argument? You seem to agree "we should be breaking JavaScript" but you're against backwards-incompatibility...which is just a way of saying "breaking JavaScript."
- boramalper 9y ago
  I agreed on this part: > to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites

optimuspaul 9y ago

except now I encounter broken sites all the time because Chrome is not my preferred browser. I think google is in the wrong and doing everyone a disservice. This is a step backwards.

zlynx 9y ago
I generally use Firefox myself. What I think is hilarious is that a lot of sites are half-broken by my NoScript settings, but I never realized they had a preference for Chrome because that code doesn't even run.

eknkc 9y ago

Great idea. Why stop there? I say let's make "if" conditions randomly work on false values 1/1000th of the time. That will teach them.

jhasse 9y ago
We kinda have this already: one in every 1000th JavaScript website breaks the back button.
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
You're being sarcastic, but this is a great idea. Let's do it.
- todd3834 9y ago
  You have an interesting point of view. Why do you feel this way?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    I think JavaScript is largely a pox on the web. I hate almost every website I come across today. I just try to ignore all of the bullshit for as long as it takes to consume the actual content, and 95% of the bullshit is possible thanks to JavaScript.
    - kowdermeister 9y ago
      Do you think if JS weren't available advertisers and marketers wouldn't try everything to shake some $ off your pocket? You would be pissed the same way. Also if it weren't JS, would it make a difference if the bullshit is created by lisp, java or erlang?
      - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
        It it were lisp, java, or erlang I'd still be pissed. The web should not have a client-side scripting language.

peterwwillis 9y ago

There are no more websites. There are applications, delivered on applications platforms, using css, html, and js as programming languages. Chrome is the application platform, and Google is the company shipping it. Like all application platforms, the interests of company who designs it always come first. Let us return to a moment to the WWW's ripe vintage of 1995, when Netscape Communications Corporation released a browser which had 3/4 of the browser market share within a year of release. Their product was advertised as a consistent universal interface to the web. They created custom features for their product, such as SSL, and JavaScript. But many of the features were released to outdo its main competitor, Microsoft, who could dedicate far more resources to development (they had so much cash they didn't even need to charge for the browser!). Netscape Communicator attempted to be a groupware solution combining multiple products to provide a complete solution for office and enterprise needs. But the design was too monolithic and complicated, and development was eventually halted. Ever since then, many organizations have attempted to build complete groupware solutions, but have been weighed down by the difficulty of developing such a complex suite of applications. And so came the future. As the web's technologies progressed, so did the capability of content delivered through a "standard" web browser. Even though browsers have traded back and forth over who supports what, most of the time the browser with the majority market share holds all the cards. As long as that browser works the same on multiple platforms, they don't need to worry about cross-browser compatibility, because that isn't their goal. Netscape's original goal was to kill Mosaic, and they did that in spades. Today, Google provides a mostly-complete groupware solution, delivered on its favorite application platform: its own web browser. The costs of developing and shipping the software to end users are much lower than traditional native apps, and they increasingly control more and more of the pipeline, even to the actual computer (Chromebooks are designed to cement Google's ownership of computing resources, freeing them from the constraints of other vendors' platforms). They not only don't want you to have "less JS and simpler JS on a website", they don't want you to run a website. They want you to provide an application which runs on their application platform. In service of that goal, they have developed dozens of web technologies designed to further their own application platform, just like the Netscape of old. If they have to break compatibility with other browsers to do it, that's fine with them. The bizarre thing is breaking existing websites on their own browser. If you can't browse the web reliably you'll stop using their browser, and then their app platform and apps are in danger of becoming obsolete.

nialv7 9y ago

You know who is a big user of JS? Who is using more, and more complex JS on their websites? Google. Google is also the pusher of some of the WebAPIs that will give browsers more access to your system (e.g. WebUSB [1]) Do you think Google is breaking JS to make themselves using less JS? [1]: https://wicg.github.io/webusb/ https://wicg.github.io/webusb/

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
Of course I don't think that. But I recognize this move by Google as beneficial to my own goals, namely getting JavaScript off of the web.
- cvsh 9y ago
  Congratulations on your opinion! You are free to disable JavaScript on your own browser and be rid of it forever. Meanwhile, in the real world, JavaScript is never "getting off the web".

ksk 9y ago

You mean like eliminating useless google scripts from wasting your mobile battery/CPU? Somehow, those keep getting complex and wasteful.