3 ms·

Why would anyone ever be embarrassed that their code from 2021 is not working on IE3 or Netscape?

by ssijak 6y ago

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?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        I have not yet, but I would like to. If you can help, I would appreciate it. Due to the wide variety of scenarios and configurations I already have tested with, I think it would be more likely than not that I'd be able to complete my base features test script with few issues. Your question is a perfect example of why I go so far with testing.
        DC1350 6y ago
        Ok. I tried to make fun of you but you’re still friendly so I’m curious. Do you mind if I ask what kind of stuff you’re maintaining where you see any traffic from these old browsers? Do you think it would ever be possible to transpile a site into some shared common set of syntax/features/whatever instead of making browser specific corrections? And what do you think about features like WebGL which are impossible to replicate on older browsers in a performant way?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Thank you! >Do you mind if I ask what kind of stuff you’re maintaining where you see any traffic from these old browsers? I'm maintaining mostly text-based resources, some of them about technology and interesting to nerds and retro enthusiasts, otheres just general purpose, which I want to make accessible to as many as possible. For example, when I conducted my first user studies with actual users of screen readers, NO ISSUES were encountered, even though I had not yet made any special adjustments for them. >Do you think it would ever be possible to transpile a site into some shared common set of syntax/features/whatever instead of making browser specific corrections? Yes, absolutely. JavaScript makes it very easy by being able to feature-check most things. Also, NoJS is something I already start out with, so it's not difficult to just skip past things like createElement if not supported. Three biggest challenges I've encountered is no > character (Mosaic treats it as end of HTML comment), no ===, and no anonymous functions. >And what do you think about features like WebGL which are impossible to replicate on older browsers in a performant way? I haven't done WebGL, but one feature I have which requires relatively modern JS (think Presto and IE9) is in a separate feature-checked module, older browsers not currently supported. Again, my goal is for basic feature support, in some cases requiring a skilled operator. For example, this particular feature (client-side cryptographic signatures) can be replicated with an external application. You need not look far for a great example of progressive enhancement and the benefits it brings. HN has a couple of JS-only niceties, without which the site is still perfectly usable.
  - KaiserPro 6y ago
    Its not really. This person obviously takes great pride in making their websites uber compatible. It takes great skill and effort to do this. Sure its a little batshit, but I applaud the level of perseverance that goes into it. I might have a different view if I was trying to ship something to a specific market segment in a hurry. However I'm not, and it pleases me immensely to see people do such silly[1] (and I mean this with the greatest of respect) things. [1] For reference, adding chamfers and geneva stripes under things like the main barrel, is utterly silly. However, should I be paying >£50k for a watch, I full expect that _every_ inch of that watch is going to be a masterpiece of finishing (reference: https://www.crownwatchblog.com/how-it-works/finishing-school-six-key-movement-finishes https://www.crownwatchblog.com/how-it-works/finishing-school...)
forgotmypw17 6y ago
Well, maybe not IE3, but I think it is embarrassing to deny access to, e.g. a five-year-old device with no upgrade path. Many devs are out of touch with the world where people can't afford a new one. I don't buy the security argument either, it's often just information access which is limited.

Why would anyone ever be embarrassed that their code from 2021 is not working on IE3 or Netscape?

by 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?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        I have not yet, but I would like to. If you can help, I would appreciate it. Due to the wide variety of scenarios and configurations I already have tested with, I think it would be more likely than not that I'd be able to complete my base features test script with few issues. Your question is a perfect example of why I go so far with testing.
        DC1350 6y ago
        Ok. I tried to make fun of you but you’re still friendly so I’m curious. Do you mind if I ask what kind of stuff you’re maintaining where you see any traffic from these old browsers? Do you think it would ever be possible to transpile a site into some shared common set of syntax/features/whatever instead of making browser specific corrections? And what do you think about features like WebGL which are impossible to replicate on older browsers in a performant way?
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Thank you! >Do you mind if I ask what kind of stuff you’re maintaining where you see any traffic from these old browsers? I'm maintaining mostly text-based resources, some of them about technology and interesting to nerds and retro enthusiasts, otheres just general purpose, which I want to make accessible to as many as possible. For example, when I conducted my first user studies with actual users of screen readers, NO ISSUES were encountered, even though I had not yet made any special adjustments for them. >Do you think it would ever be possible to transpile a site into some shared common set of syntax/features/whatever instead of making browser specific corrections? Yes, absolutely. JavaScript makes it very easy by being able to feature-check most things. Also, NoJS is something I already start out with, so it's not difficult to just skip past things like createElement if not supported. Three biggest challenges I've encountered is no > character (Mosaic treats it as end of HTML comment), no ===, and no anonymous functions. >And what do you think about features like WebGL which are impossible to replicate on older browsers in a performant way? I haven't done WebGL, but one feature I have which requires relatively modern JS (think Presto and IE9) is in a separate feature-checked module, older browsers not currently supported. Again, my goal is for basic feature support, in some cases requiring a skilled operator. For example, this particular feature (client-side cryptographic signatures) can be replicated with an external application. You need not look far for a great example of progressive enhancement and the benefits it brings. HN has a couple of JS-only niceties, without which the site is still perfectly usable.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  Its not really. This person obviously takes great pride in making their websites uber compatible. It takes great skill and effort to do this. Sure its a little batshit, but I applaud the level of perseverance that goes into it. I might have a different view if I was trying to ship something to a specific market segment in a hurry. However I'm not, and it pleases me immensely to see people do such silly[1] (and I mean this with the greatest of respect) things. [1] For reference, adding chamfers and geneva stripes under things like the main barrel, is utterly silly. However, should I be paying >£50k for a watch, I full expect that _every_ inch of that watch is going to be a masterpiece of finishing (reference: https://www.crownwatchblog.com/how-it-works/finishing-school-six-key-movement-finishes https://www.crownwatchblog.com/how-it-works/finishing-school...)

forgotmypw17 6y ago

Well, maybe not IE3, but I think it is embarrassing to deny access to, e.g. a five-year-old device with no upgrade path. Many devs are out of touch with the world where people can't afford a new one. I don't buy the security argument either, it's often just information access which is limited.