5 ms·

I am obsessive about backwards compatibility, and I test back to Netscape 2.0 (the first JS platform). The magic of JS feature check abilities is that you can t

I am obsessive about backwards compatibility, and I test back to Netscape 2.0 (the first JS platform). The magic of JS feature check abilities is that you can totally cover every browser. There's a little bit of testing you have to do, because early browser wars resulted in intentionally added incompatibility gotchas, but it's not that bad. The Web is an amazing and unique platform unlike almost any other available to us. We're so lucky to have it.

buro9 6y ago
But why? I recently ran Netscape 4 for the giggles and +90% of the web no longer functions as I could not load the pages due to the protocols no longer being supported. You may be testing against JS features but in reality those browsers cannot function on the open internet as their protocol and security stacks aren't supported. A simple check of caniuse.com is sufficient, but if you're worried here's which browsers are in use https://caniuse.com/usage-table https://caniuse.com/usage-table . Netscape no longer even registers.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Because I can. Because I like them. Because I believe in Any Browser. Because of retro-computing. Because with every known scenario I cover, several more unanticipated ones are also covered. Also, yes, I can imagine being limited to a particular older version of a browser, NN 2.0 included. Because it's fun as heck. Because I'm fucking tired of browser monoculture and I want the Web to be compatible again. If I, one determined developer, can make it work in Mosaic, IE3, Netscape, Opera 3 and 12, Lynx, Links, Dillo, Netsurf, w3m, PaleMoon, Waterfox, Google Translate, and yeah, with some grinding, Chrome, with and without JS, hopefully some devs out there feel embarrassed for their code and try a little harder...
  - ssijak 6y ago
    Why would anyone ever be embarrassed that their code from 2021 is not working on IE3 or Netscape?
    - KaiserPro 6y ago
      why would a watchmaker be embarrassed for not polishing the inside of a case that only the watchmaker can see?
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Best answer I've seen :)
      - ssijak 6y ago
        It is false analogy.
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Can you explain what is false about it?
        DC1350 6y ago
        Because the standards you’re building against are arbitrary and just made up by other people. I can make a browser that crashes when it encounters a <div> tag. It’s a shitty browser. Will you feel bad when your stuff won’t work on it?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        You're describing something purposely made non-functional, while I am building against software widely distributed and still occasionally encountered in the real world, hardly arbitrary.
        DC1350 6y ago
        Do you test for compatibility with the Wii and Nintendo DS browsers?
        6y ago
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  >I recently ran Netscape 4 for the giggles and +90% of the web no longer functions as I could not load the pages due to the protocols no longer being supported. Netscape 4 - some minor version - had a bug where if you had a paragraph inside of a list item inside of a div inside of a div it crashed the browser. (I may be misremembering the bug but it was something ridiculous like this) it was hard to debug for markup that was generated via XSL-T. So anyway even if the protocols still worked, I don't think you can really expect it to work too much.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    I didn't say I use them as a daily driver. I expect to be able to use all the base features.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Netscape 4 is one of my all-time favorite browsers. I stuck with it for many years, because it was blazing fast on my older hardware, and cached well, unlike IE. Like you, I sometimes take it out for a spin "for the giggles". It's comforting and it works well with my own sites. I don't worry much about mitm for my purposes, and HTTP still works great, a testament to its design.
gerardnll 6y ago
I don't get it. Are we going to use 20 year old computers in the future? Is Netscape 2.0 the only browser we will only have? Even if we want to support 100% of users and don't think about economics I really doubt there's going to be someone with Netscape 2.0 visiting your website nowadays.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Well, I use it, so your doubt is obviously disproven. The future is unknown, but I want to be as ready as I can be. See my other comment for more thoughts.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Well, I use it, so your doubt is obviously disproven. Do you really? And if so, who cares? (I mean "who as in which webmaster would even care?" not as in, "are there any niche enthusiasts that do?"). When the parent says "is anybody", they mean "are any significant numbers". So, yeah, maybe there is 1. Or 10. Or 100 if we're generous. I doubt there are 1000 (and the website stats can easily verify it), and they surely aren't any number big enough to care about. But even more importantly, there's no technical, ethical or other rule to say "you need to cater to the person using Netscape 2 in 2021" anymore than there's one saying "You need to sell music in wax cylinders, lest someone who still uses such a player comes to your shop". If it was an accessibility or poverty argument sure. But it's surely not poverty the reason why someone keeps using Netscape 2.0 in 2021.
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      My other comment addresses your questions. Did you find it? To summarize, if I can accomodate that one user, whatever their reasons or situation, which I do not pretend to know, instead of turning them away, then I will invest my time and effort in that. And where Netscape 2.0 can go, so can probably another browser and configuration I,m not even aware of or anticipating.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  > Are we going to use 20 year old computers in the future? I hope so. If it weren't for the ever-increasing bloat, on both webpages and webpage-as-an-app's, it wouldn't be a problem. What can you do today with your computer that you couldn't have done 20 years ago? ("Looks better" doesn't count)
kilroy123 6y ago
Is this a joke? Do you actually test your work on a Netscape 2 browser? But why? There is no way anyone is viewing your page in anything older than IE 10. If you're in some niche market or region maybe IE 8.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Not a joke. I believe in Any Browser. My other reply explains my reasoning. My niche sites see all kinds of browsers, btw. Currently developed browsers also include Links, Lynx, Dillo, Netsurf, and w3m.
qvq 6y ago
That's awesome you spend effort to use JS in as many browsers as possible. Most sites that must work in all browsers usually avoid JS altogether. Have you thought about creating a library for this? It could be used for progressive enhancement on sites that would normally have no JS.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I've gradually grown it into a hybrid frsmework which can be either static HTML, dynamically updated, or a middle ground (via access.log) All the JS modules are also optional, and can be turned off with one setting. It is not production ready yet, but demos and code can be accessed via my profile.

buro9 6y ago

But why? I recently ran Netscape 4 for the giggles and +90% of the web no longer functions as I could not load the pages due to the protocols no longer being supported. You may be testing against JS features but in reality those browsers cannot function on the open internet as their protocol and security stacks aren't supported. A simple check of caniuse.com is sufficient, but if you're worried here's which browsers are in use https://caniuse.com/usage-table https://caniuse.com/usage-table . Netscape no longer even registers.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Because I can. Because I like them. Because I believe in Any Browser. Because of retro-computing. Because with every known scenario I cover, several more unanticipated ones are also covered. Also, yes, I can imagine being limited to a particular older version of a browser, NN 2.0 included. Because it's fun as heck. Because I'm fucking tired of browser monoculture and I want the Web to be compatible again. If I, one determined developer, can make it work in Mosaic, IE3, Netscape, Opera 3 and 12, Lynx, Links, Dillo, Netsurf, w3m, PaleMoon, Waterfox, Google Translate, and yeah, with some grinding, Chrome, with and without JS, hopefully some devs out there feel embarrassed for their code and try a little harder...
- ssijak 6y ago
  Why would anyone ever be embarrassed that their code from 2021 is not working on IE3 or Netscape?
  - KaiserPro 6y ago
    why would a watchmaker be embarrassed for not polishing the inside of a case that only the watchmaker can see?
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      Best answer I've seen :)
    - ssijak 6y ago
      It is false analogy.
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Can you explain what is false about it?
        DC1350 6y ago
        Because the standards you’re building against are arbitrary and just made up by other people. I can make a browser that crashes when it encounters a <div> tag. It’s a shitty browser. Will you feel bad when your stuff won’t work on it?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        You're describing something purposely made non-functional, while I am building against software widely distributed and still occasionally encountered in the real world, hardly arbitrary.
        DC1350 6y ago
        Do you test for compatibility with the Wii and Nintendo DS browsers?
        6y ago
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>I recently ran Netscape 4 for the giggles and +90% of the web no longer functions as I could not load the pages due to the protocols no longer being supported. Netscape 4 - some minor version - had a bug where if you had a paragraph inside of a list item inside of a div inside of a div it crashed the browser. (I may be misremembering the bug but it was something ridiculous like this) it was hard to debug for markup that was generated via XSL-T. So anyway even if the protocols still worked, I don't think you can really expect it to work too much.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I didn't say I use them as a daily driver. I expect to be able to use all the base features.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
Netscape 4 is one of my all-time favorite browsers. I stuck with it for many years, because it was blazing fast on my older hardware, and cached well, unlike IE. Like you, I sometimes take it out for a spin "for the giggles". It's comforting and it works well with my own sites. I don't worry much about mitm for my purposes, and HTTP still works great, a testament to its design.

gerardnll 6y ago

I don't get it. Are we going to use 20 year old computers in the future? Is Netscape 2.0 the only browser we will only have? Even if we want to support 100% of users and don't think about economics I really doubt there's going to be someone with Netscape 2.0 visiting your website nowadays.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Well, I use it, so your doubt is obviously disproven. The future is unknown, but I want to be as ready as I can be. See my other comment for more thoughts.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Well, I use it, so your doubt is obviously disproven. Do you really? And if so, who cares? (I mean "who as in which webmaster would even care?" not as in, "are there any niche enthusiasts that do?"). When the parent says "is anybody", they mean "are any significant numbers". So, yeah, maybe there is 1. Or 10. Or 100 if we're generous. I doubt there are 1000 (and the website stats can easily verify it), and they surely aren't any number big enough to care about. But even more importantly, there's no technical, ethical or other rule to say "you need to cater to the person using Netscape 2 in 2021" anymore than there's one saying "You need to sell music in wax cylinders, lest someone who still uses such a player comes to your shop". If it was an accessibility or poverty argument sure. But it's surely not poverty the reason why someone keeps using Netscape 2.0 in 2021.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    My other comment addresses your questions. Did you find it? To summarize, if I can accomodate that one user, whatever their reasons or situation, which I do not pretend to know, instead of turning them away, then I will invest my time and effort in that. And where Netscape 2.0 can go, so can probably another browser and configuration I,m not even aware of or anticipating.
jfrunyon 6y ago
> Are we going to use 20 year old computers in the future? I hope so. If it weren't for the ever-increasing bloat, on both webpages and webpage-as-an-app's, it wouldn't be a problem. What can you do today with your computer that you couldn't have done 20 years ago? ("Looks better" doesn't count)

kilroy123 6y ago

Is this a joke? Do you actually test your work on a Netscape 2 browser? But why? There is no way anyone is viewing your page in anything older than IE 10. If you're in some niche market or region maybe IE 8.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Not a joke. I believe in Any Browser. My other reply explains my reasoning. My niche sites see all kinds of browsers, btw. Currently developed browsers also include Links, Lynx, Dillo, Netsurf, and w3m.

qvq 6y ago

That's awesome you spend effort to use JS in as many browsers as possible. Most sites that must work in all browsers usually avoid JS altogether. Have you thought about creating a library for this? It could be used for progressive enhancement on sites that would normally have no JS.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
I've gradually grown it into a hybrid frsmework which can be either static HTML, dynamically updated, or a middle ground (via access.log) All the JS modules are also optional, and can be turned off with one setting. It is not production ready yet, but demos and code can be accessed via my profile.