3 ms·

Is always issue of "lazy". If you have limited resources, it makes sense to develop for only one platform.

unknown2374 6y ago
The platform is the web, not the browsers themselves. The web is an open platform, while some browser push for proprietary features. This is not like Windows vs Linux where each of those OSes are separate platforms, and supporting both can be difficult.
- mgkimsal 6y ago
  supporting multiple browsers can be difficult. if you push out some purist code that is "supposed" to work to some spec, but it doesn't work... you have to start making decisions about which path forward to take. outside pure code, you still have to deal with testing/verifying/confirming, then committing to that for each version of the browser on multiple platforms. Providing actual strong positive and ongoing support for your system on specific browsers and platforms is generally better than "well... we wrote to the published spec, the problem is every browser vendor sucks and they need to conform to my understanding of specs". That ain't gonna happen. To be clear, I don't think most companies actually put a lot of effort behind their 'support' of just one browser (years ago when it was IE, now when it's chrome).
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  If the platform is the web, but a standards-compliant site can work in Chrome but not Firefox, the issue isn't standards compliance. And it's up to the individual site author whether retaining that last chunk of Firefox-only (or Edge-only, or Safari-only) users is worth the cash outlay to test on those platforms. I've done multi-browser development; it adds significant friction to the process, especially if one's testing infrastructure is rocky (and most are, and it costs resources to do better than rocky).
modo_mario 6y ago
Yes that is lazy. If you develop for the web following proper web-standards chances are it should work on other browsers. This ain't the days of
intrasight 6y ago
Spellchecker misfire. I'd mean to say "not an issue of lazy". As a sole developer of some commercial apps, I have often said "This is an IE app" or "This is a Chrome app". The business user of the app gets no added benefit from potentially twice the price of development to have it be cross-browser.

The platform is the web, not the browsers themselves. The web is an open platform, while some browser push for proprietary features. This is not like Windows vs Linux where each of those OSes are separate platforms, and supporting both can be difficult.

mgkimsal 6y ago
supporting multiple browsers can be difficult. if you push out some purist code that is "supposed" to work to some spec, but it doesn't work... you have to start making decisions about which path forward to take. outside pure code, you still have to deal with testing/verifying/confirming, then committing to that for each version of the browser on multiple platforms. Providing actual strong positive and ongoing support for your system on specific browsers and platforms is generally better than "well... we wrote to the published spec, the problem is every browser vendor sucks and they need to conform to my understanding of specs". That ain't gonna happen. To be clear, I don't think most companies actually put a lot of effort behind their 'support' of just one browser (years ago when it was IE, now when it's chrome).
shadowgovt 6y ago
If the platform is the web, but a standards-compliant site can work in Chrome but not Firefox, the issue isn't standards compliance. And it's up to the individual site author whether retaining that last chunk of Firefox-only (or Edge-only, or Safari-only) users is worth the cash outlay to test on those platforms. I've done multi-browser development; it adds significant friction to the process, especially if one's testing infrastructure is rocky (and most are, and it costs resources to do better than rocky).

modo_mario 6y ago

Yes that is lazy. If you develop for the web following proper web-standards chances are it should work on other browsers. This ain't the days of

intrasight 6y ago

Spellchecker misfire. I'd mean to say "not an issue of lazy". As a sole developer of some commercial apps, I have often said "This is an IE app" or "This is a Chrome app". The business user of the app gets no added benefit from potentially twice the price of development to have it be cross-browser.