3 ms·
I'm kinda just reiterating what other people have said here, but I don't really get the "don't break the web" thing. Apparently it was just fine to break the w
by johnfn 4y ago
I'm kinda just reiterating what other people have said here, but I don't really get the "don't break the web" thing.
Apparently it was just fine to break the web when it meant shutting off Flash and breaking millions of existing games and movies - but a few old sites that could trivially be wrapped that use Mootools are somehow good enough to change "flatten" to "flat"?
- paulgb 4y agoI hear you and I am nostalgic for old flash content, but replacing a method name that hasn’t shipped in a production build is an easier thing to do than maintaining an interactive multimedia plugin that was never designed to be a web standard.
- Taywee 4y agoFlash was never a web standard, there weren't enough independent implementations, it was proprietary only, and it had mountains of security issues. I agree with trying to not break the web, but the death of Flash on the web was great, and the only tragedy is that there's still not a great, reasonable FOSS solution for running arbitrary swf files offline.
- spiderice 4y agoI’m not sure I understand your logic. MooTools isn’t a web standard either. How is breaking all the websites relying on flash acceptable while breaking all the websites relying on MooTools not?
- davidmurdoch 4y agoIt was built on web standards.
- c3534l 4y agoI'll add to that that the breaking of stuff when people finally abandonned flash is exactly the sort of thing we want to avoid!