4 ms·

Safari is the new IE8. Every web dev I know bitches about it.

tambourine_man 8y ago
It's not. I'm a web developer and it's my browser of choice.
dmitriid 8y ago
Every bad web dev bitches about it. There's nothing about Safari that makes it "the new IE8". Ironically, the very same HN that bemoans every new thing as "why should devs jump onto this shiny new things, just slow down already" criticises Safari for not jumping onto every new thing.
- the_duke 8y ago
  It's not so much jumping on new things, it's implementing accepted features which has slowed down very considerably since the Blink fork. Google was really carrying a big part of the webkit development.
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    > it's implementing accepted features Define "accepted". Hastily implemented and shoved down everyone's throat by Chrome doesn't mean "accepted". > Google was really carrying a big part of the webkit development. Nope. Google is dominating the development space with utter disregard for public/dev opinion.
- userbinator 8y ago
  Ironically, the very same HN that bemoans every new thing as "why should devs jump onto this shiny new things, just slow down already" criticises Safari for not jumping onto every new thing. HN is quite diverse and I'm pretty sure those are two disjoint sets of users. (I'm in the former group myself --- not a fan of presenting information in such a way as to decrease its accessibility while also increasing resource usage.) I bet I could make those accordion sections work in all browsers going back to IE5 without much effort, and use nothing near 120KB of JS to do it... but no, most "modern web devs" would rather pile on the bloat of their libraries and "best practices" to make something that works only in the very latest version of the one browser they personally use.
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > I bet I could make those accordion sections work in all browsers going back to IE5 without much effort, and use nothing near 120KB of JS to do it. <summary>/<details> tags with JS polyfill is all you'd need. https://caniuse.com/#search=summary https://caniuse.com/#search=summary
    - userbinator 8y ago
      Your post shows the big difference in mentality that's partly responsible for why we see so many broken sites --- I haven't ever used those tags before and would just go for plain old DOM style manipulation with JS (which has been around for a very long time), whereas you started with something much newer and took backwards-compatibility as an afterthought to be added on. Your solution requires less initial effort (providing you knew about the new tags) but then additional effort to work on older browsers --- that might not even be done --- whereas my solution may take a little more effort initially, but then naturally doesn't need any further considerations for backwards-compatibility.
      - forty 8y ago
        Why would anyone use an older browser? (Other than IE in old firms - but this is probably becoming rarer and rarer) I guess everyone should upgrade their browser regularly, at least to get security upgrades
      - lazyjones 8y ago
        My mentality is to make the website usable without JS for most people (with the reasonable effort of installing FF or Chrome at most), then use as simple and compatible JS as possible if needed. Thus, old-style DOM fiddling isn't the first choice - and if we're talking very old browsers, it was also tricky to get right due to all the incompatibilities. Why you think something would be broken when a polyfill is used as fallback, I don't know.
- strken 8y ago
  It's annoying that it throws exceptions when you try to access LocalStorage in Private Browsing.
- frenchy 8y ago
  It's support for video codecs is pretty limited, and has been for a long time, but I think you're right about most of the other things being very new "standards".

It's not. I'm a web developer and it's my browser of choice.

Every bad web dev bitches about it. There's nothing about Safari that makes it "the new IE8". Ironically, the very same HN that bemoans every new thing as "why should devs jump onto this shiny new things, just slow down already" criticises Safari for not jumping onto every new thing.

the_duke 8y ago
It's not so much jumping on new things, it's implementing accepted features which has slowed down very considerably since the Blink fork. Google was really carrying a big part of the webkit development.
- dmitriid 8y ago
  > it's implementing accepted features Define "accepted". Hastily implemented and shoved down everyone's throat by Chrome doesn't mean "accepted". > Google was really carrying a big part of the webkit development. Nope. Google is dominating the development space with utter disregard for public/dev opinion.
userbinator 8y ago
Ironically, the very same HN that bemoans every new thing as "why should devs jump onto this shiny new things, just slow down already" criticises Safari for not jumping onto every new thing. HN is quite diverse and I'm pretty sure those are two disjoint sets of users. (I'm in the former group myself --- not a fan of presenting information in such a way as to decrease its accessibility while also increasing resource usage.) I bet I could make those accordion sections work in all browsers going back to IE5 without much effort, and use nothing near 120KB of JS to do it... but no, most "modern web devs" would rather pile on the bloat of their libraries and "best practices" to make something that works only in the very latest version of the one browser they personally use.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > I bet I could make those accordion sections work in all browsers going back to IE5 without much effort, and use nothing near 120KB of JS to do it. <summary>/<details> tags with JS polyfill is all you'd need. https://caniuse.com/#search=summary https://caniuse.com/#search=summary
  - userbinator 8y ago
    Your post shows the big difference in mentality that's partly responsible for why we see so many broken sites --- I haven't ever used those tags before and would just go for plain old DOM style manipulation with JS (which has been around for a very long time), whereas you started with something much newer and took backwards-compatibility as an afterthought to be added on. Your solution requires less initial effort (providing you knew about the new tags) but then additional effort to work on older browsers --- that might not even be done --- whereas my solution may take a little more effort initially, but then naturally doesn't need any further considerations for backwards-compatibility.
    - forty 8y ago
      Why would anyone use an older browser? (Other than IE in old firms - but this is probably becoming rarer and rarer) I guess everyone should upgrade their browser regularly, at least to get security upgrades
    - lazyjones 8y ago
      My mentality is to make the website usable without JS for most people (with the reasonable effort of installing FF or Chrome at most), then use as simple and compatible JS as possible if needed. Thus, old-style DOM fiddling isn't the first choice - and if we're talking very old browsers, it was also tricky to get right due to all the incompatibilities. Why you think something would be broken when a polyfill is used as fallback, I don't know.
strken 8y ago
It's annoying that it throws exceptions when you try to access LocalStorage in Private Browsing.
frenchy 8y ago
It's support for video codecs is pretty limited, and has been for a long time, but I think you're right about most of the other things being very new "standards".