4 ms·
I think the point of it was that they made every event listener passive by default, rather than making it an option.
by juliangoldsmith 9y ago
I think the point of it was that they made every event listener passive by default, rather than making it an option.
- acdha 9y agoMy point was simply that while there's a good technical discussion to be had here, the doom and gloom styling hurts it. There is a reasonable point about backwards compatibility, the conflicts between Google owning Chrome and also making web properties which compete with other companies, etc. but there's a lot of hyperbole like this: “Now, this is a terrible thing to do. It’s very, very, very bad. Basically, Chrome broke half of user websites, the ones that were relying on touch/scroll events being cancellable, at the benefit of winning some performance for websites that were not yet aware of this optional optimization.” None of those claims are supported. If Mobile Chrome broke half of the sites on the web, we'd have heard a lot more outrage over the last six months, and the very strong language fails to consider all of the broken code which was making the web experience worse for almost everyone. Again, I'm not saying that that the technical discussion isn't useful but that “breaks the web” seems unnecessarily hyperbolic. The fact that the React team is struggling with a simple JS/CSS change seems to say a lot more about the support cost of building huge JS frameworks which duplicate core browser functionality than whether the Chrome team should make decisions to help mobile performance.