4 ms·

> chrome [h]as 70% market share why would you ever bother ? This view seriously needs to die. It's honestly not that hard to test in two or three browsers, and

> chrome [h]as 70% market share why would you ever bother ? This view seriously needs to die. It's honestly not that hard to test in two or three browsers, and the differences are minor enough that it isn't a pain. But the only way that's possible is through Web standardization, which only happens when there are diverse options. As web developers, it's our duty to keep the web healthy, and that means not only optimizing for a single browser.

outworlder 8y ago
Agreed. This is IE 6.0 all over again.
- shpx 8y ago
  With the exception that Chrome is a good browser.
  - L-four 8y ago
    I.E. 6 was a good browser when it was released too.
  - recursive 8y ago
    When IE6 was released it was much better than the nearest competitor. But stagnating for 6 years made it become basically one of the worst.
  - olliej 8y ago
    While msft did abuse their position to solidify an IE centric world, people need to realize that when ie4/5/6 were released they were dramatically better than the competitors. The problem is that post-domination they simply stagnated and so the design shortcomings start being a problem. It needs to be repeated: at the time IE /was/ a good browser. Just like chrome today. And similar to chrome played fast and loose with web exposed features. Sometimes for the better (XHR was an IE invention), sometimes for worse (so was activeX).
    - cesarb 8y ago
      > Sometimes for the better (XHR was an IE invention), sometimes for worse (so was activeX). Wasn't XMLHttpRequest an ActiveX object?
  - taf2 8y ago
    and an open source browser with at least 2 major browser vendors using it's core rendering engine... Edge and Opera
    - olliej 8y ago
      But that simply means there’s functionally only one browser - the fact that there are different skins isn’t really relevant. Standards are not about “anyone can just use that implementation” they are about “anyone can make a competing implementation”. Looking at the sources is not a specification.
      - mappu 8y ago
        The standards are just economically prohibitive to implement all over again.
        olliej 8y ago
        By that logic it was a waste of time for Firefox to exist -- there was already IE, or it was a waste of time for webkit to exist as there was already khtml, or blink because webkit, etc, etc People only caring about one browser is exactly what caused ie6 to become such a problem - everyone had to reverse engineer whatever it was doing because nothing was specified.
        xkapastel 8y ago
        > By that logic it was a waste of time for Firefox to exist -- there was already IE, No, IE would need be to be open source for that logic to be applicable there, since the idea is to use a well-developed open source code base instead of rolling your own thing. > or it was a waste of time for webkit to exist as there was already khtml, or blink because webkit, You actually undercut your own point with these examples: WebKit was a fork of KHTML, Blink was a fork of WebKit. The developers in question believed that it would have been a waste of time to start from scratch, and so they didn't!

outworlder 8y ago

Agreed. This is IE 6.0 all over again.

shpx 8y ago
With the exception that Chrome is a good browser.
- L-four 8y ago
  I.E. 6 was a good browser when it was released too.
- recursive 8y ago
  When IE6 was released it was much better than the nearest competitor. But stagnating for 6 years made it become basically one of the worst.
- olliej 8y ago
  While msft did abuse their position to solidify an IE centric world, people need to realize that when ie4/5/6 were released they were dramatically better than the competitors. The problem is that post-domination they simply stagnated and so the design shortcomings start being a problem. It needs to be repeated: at the time IE /was/ a good browser. Just like chrome today. And similar to chrome played fast and loose with web exposed features. Sometimes for the better (XHR was an IE invention), sometimes for worse (so was activeX).
  - cesarb 8y ago
    > Sometimes for the better (XHR was an IE invention), sometimes for worse (so was activeX). Wasn't XMLHttpRequest an ActiveX object?
- taf2 8y ago
  and an open source browser with at least 2 major browser vendors using it's core rendering engine... Edge and Opera
  - olliej 8y ago
    But that simply means there’s functionally only one browser - the fact that there are different skins isn’t really relevant. Standards are not about “anyone can just use that implementation” they are about “anyone can make a competing implementation”. Looking at the sources is not a specification.
    - mappu 8y ago
      The standards are just economically prohibitive to implement all over again.
      - olliej 8y ago
        By that logic it was a waste of time for Firefox to exist -- there was already IE, or it was a waste of time for webkit to exist as there was already khtml, or blink because webkit, etc, etc People only caring about one browser is exactly what caused ie6 to become such a problem - everyone had to reverse engineer whatever it was doing because nothing was specified.
        xkapastel 8y ago
        > By that logic it was a waste of time for Firefox to exist -- there was already IE, No, IE would need be to be open source for that logic to be applicable there, since the idea is to use a well-developed open source code base instead of rolling your own thing. > or it was a waste of time for webkit to exist as there was already khtml, or blink because webkit, You actually undercut your own point with these examples: WebKit was a fork of KHTML, Blink was a fork of WebKit. The developers in question believed that it would have been a waste of time to start from scratch, and so they didn't!