3 ms·
Ehhhhh I'll give them a pass on this. Almost nobody is using it because browser support was never that great and it's being deprecated. We should focus on redu
by boredprograming 5y ago
Ehhhhh I'll give them a pass on this. Almost nobody is using it because browser support was never that great and it's being deprecated.
We should focus on reducing browser feature creep. There's hundreds of features and most of them are barely used or legacy
- feross 5y agoUhh, IndexedDB is not deprecated and every browser supports it: https://caniuse.com/?search=indexeddb https://caniuse.com/?search=indexeddb
- SilverRed 5y agoI wonder if it ever made sense for the browser to provide this facility over exposing a sandbox where the app can store arbitrary data and provide its own version of sqlite for js/wasm. At least this way your own bundled db won't be broken by browser bugs.
- int_19h 5y agoBy the same logic, did it ever make sense for the browser to provide JS, instead of wasm + well-defined DOM API? And I think the answer is that, no, it did not. And I suspect that we'll end up in a wasm-first world eventually anyway, just with a lengthy and inconvenient detour. But it's worth remembering that IndexedDB predates wasm by several years.
- throw_m239339 5y agoYou need a way to make sure whatever WASM database you bundle with your front-end app actually persists data somewhere in a transactional way. You cannot do that if you do not have a transactional data store as a WebAPI at first place. Local storage isn't.
- mnahkies 5y agoI think you're thinking of websql https://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ https://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
- boredprograming 5y agoYou're right. Fuck I'm old