3 ms·

As someone who has also worked on implementing a POSIX shell, and read and implemented large swaths of POSIX besides, in my experience the main thing it lacks i

As someone who has also worked on implementing a POSIX shell, and read and implemented large swaths of POSIX besides, in my experience the main thing it lacks in is edge cases. These would normally be corrected with as much as one sentence, and by my intuition I would expect no more than 100,000 additional words would be necessary to fully specify these edge cases. It doesn't meaningfully move the dial on any of these numbers. >I can make a website that reasonably works well on all browsers with confidence. At least on the level where one can develop a full SPA based on one browser and then try & test it on others. Most browser-specific issues don't exist and when they do, it's usually a one-liner. On Chrome and Firefox, maybe. How about IE or Safari? How about Netsurf or Lynx or w3m? SourceHut (of which I am the founder and lead developer) works in all of those browsers, by the way. >That's interesting, what was it? Believe it or not, it was in how they interpreted margins. This was the fix: https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/core.sr.ht/commit/a4a290fbeea23cf76ea6bb58798c6763d7bf6b9a https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/core.sr.ht/commit/a4a290fbeea23c... todo.sr.ht rendered differently on Firefox and Chrome before this change. I didn't dig into it enough to make any bug reports, so connecting the dots is up to you if you're interested. I hit another browser bug a while ago because Chrome arbitrary decided that the maximum number of elements in a CSS grid is 1,000.

pcr910303 7y ago
It's a bit too late to reply, but... > These would normally be corrected with as much as one sentence, and by my intuition I would expect no more than 100,000 additional words would be necessary to fully specify these edge cases. It doesn't meaningfully move the dial on any of these numbers. I expect it would take much more than that to specify exactly what bash, dash and a lot of other shells should do in a cross-platform manner, consolidate the language to one, and allow backwards compatibility (just like where the web APIs are based on the consolidation efforts of IE, Netscape, and a bunch of other browsers in the 90s) > On Chrome and Firefox, maybe. How about IE or Safari? How about Netsurf or Lynx or w3m? SourceHut (of which I am the founder and lead developer) works in all of those browsers, by the way. Chrome, Firefox, and Safari are pretty easy to target all at once, as they have the usual modern features. Considering Lynx, Netsurf, or w3m as modern web browsers invalidate your points, since I'm pretty sure they don't implement a lot of the standards, does w3m implement flex box/CSS grid for example? I can't say this in confidence, but I think it won't be that hard to (not that it's easy) implement a web browser with a complexity of w3m. > Believe it or not, it was in how they interpreted margins. This was the fix: Hmm, my intuition feels like that's a SCSS-compiling problem where they mixed up the rules... but if they weren't, that would definitely be at least one browser bug.

pcr910303 7y ago

It's a bit too late to reply, but... > These would normally be corrected with as much as one sentence, and by my intuition I would expect no more than 100,000 additional words would be necessary to fully specify these edge cases. It doesn't meaningfully move the dial on any of these numbers. I expect it would take much more than that to specify exactly what bash, dash and a lot of other shells should do in a cross-platform manner, consolidate the language to one, and allow backwards compatibility (just like where the web APIs are based on the consolidation efforts of IE, Netscape, and a bunch of other browsers in the 90s) > On Chrome and Firefox, maybe. How about IE or Safari? How about Netsurf or Lynx or w3m? SourceHut (of which I am the founder and lead developer) works in all of those browsers, by the way. Chrome, Firefox, and Safari are pretty easy to target all at once, as they have the usual modern features. Considering Lynx, Netsurf, or w3m as modern web browsers invalidate your points, since I'm pretty sure they don't implement a lot of the standards, does w3m implement flex box/CSS grid for example? I can't say this in confidence, but I think it won't be that hard to (not that it's easy) implement a web browser with a complexity of w3m. > Believe it or not, it was in how they interpreted margins. This was the fix: Hmm, my intuition feels like that's a SCSS-compiling problem where they mixed up the rules... but if they weren't, that would definitely be at least one browser bug.