3 ms·

The real problem is that the web is now too complex to the point that it's impossible to safely implement it. And W3C keeps trying to add new features to it. At

by Grue3 8y ago

The real problem is that the web is now too complex to the point that it's impossible to safely implement it. And W3C keeps trying to add new features to it. At some point we have to stop and consider whether all this cruft is even necessary.

sanxiyn 8y ago
Of course all the cruft is necessary due to compatibility. (Browsers monitor usage statistics and do remove crufts when possible.)
- chriswarbo 8y ago
  "Polyfills" are quite common in Web development, and are also proof that browsers do a whole bunch of unneeded stuff (if it were needed, there would be no way to polyfill it). I actually think polyfill usage is backwards: the current approach allows code targetting new features to be made compatible with old browsers, by the site providing polyfills. I think it's much better for new browsers to be leaner, simpler and more well-thought-out than their predecessors. Such browsers can provide polyfills to allow compatibility with code targetting old features that have been dropped. In other words, browsers should be getting smaller (e.g. a canvas, audio stream, input method and language interpreter); more and more functionality should be offloaded into interpreted libraries (parsing, text rendering, DOM, event loops, layout, Javascript, etc.)
  - detaro 8y ago
    Polyfills often are worse (slower, only provide parts of the functionality, ...) than the native implementation provided by newer browsers, so the browser implementation isn't strictly "unneeded".
  - collinmanderson 8y ago
    This _did_ successfully happen with MathML. It was on track to get native browser support, but they decided it the polyfill (mathjax) was good enough and wasn't worth native support for such a niche feature. As a web developer, I much appreciate native features and avoid polyfills as much as possible.

3 ms·

The real problem is that the web is now too complex to the point that it's impossible to safely implement it. And W3C keeps trying to add new features to it. At

by Grue3 8y ago

sanxiyn 8y ago
Of course all the cruft is necessary due to compatibility. (Browsers monitor usage statistics and do remove crufts when possible.)
- chriswarbo 8y ago
  "Polyfills" are quite common in Web development, and are also proof that browsers do a whole bunch of unneeded stuff (if it were needed, there would be no way to polyfill it). I actually think polyfill usage is backwards: the current approach allows code targetting new features to be made compatible with old browsers, by the site providing polyfills. I think it's much better for new browsers to be leaner, simpler and more well-thought-out than their predecessors. Such browsers can provide polyfills to allow compatibility with code targetting old features that have been dropped. In other words, browsers should be getting smaller (e.g. a canvas, audio stream, input method and language interpreter); more and more functionality should be offloaded into interpreted libraries (parsing, text rendering, DOM, event loops, layout, Javascript, etc.)
  - detaro 8y ago
    Polyfills often are worse (slower, only provide parts of the functionality, ...) than the native implementation provided by newer browsers, so the browser implementation isn't strictly "unneeded".
  - collinmanderson 8y ago
    This _did_ successfully happen with MathML. It was on track to get native browser support, but they decided it the polyfill (mathjax) was good enough and wasn't worth native support for such a niche feature. As a web developer, I much appreciate native features and avoid polyfills as much as possible.