4 ms·

I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm being quite literal. I tried two or three times to support Safari. I gave up on it and I'm never going back. Not bashing web kit

I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm being quite literal. I tried two or three times to support Safari. I gave up on it and I'm never going back. Not bashing web kit because it's from Apple, I'm bashing web kit because I had a website, I wanted to make that website support safari, and it was an absolute pain to the degree that I gave up on it. The only other browser I've had experiences like this in has been Firefox mobile. I have similar feelings about Firefox mobile. On the desktop, technically maybe Safari is fine on the desktop because I don't own a Mac so I can't test it, but chrome and Firefox are perfectly easy to make work together on the web with no issues. I do it everyday, safari is not normal in this.

acdha 4y ago
The reason you’re getting negative reactions is because you made these huge sweeping generalizations which are untrue for most web developers but despite being so vehement they’re also entirely unverifiable. It’s certainly possible there’s some feature you hit which was buggy but despite hundreds of words we still have no idea where the alleged problem was – JavaScript, DOM, CSS, audio/video, Unicode support or text rendering, who knows?
alwillis 4y ago
> I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm being quite literal. I tried two or three times to support Safari. I gave up on it and I'm never going back. There's nothing special that has to be done to "support Safari" other than writing normal CSS, HTML and JavaScript just like for any other browser. Even if you used something experimental or Chrome-only, there are polyfills for most features. This only makes sense for a public facing website (e-commerce, for example), since Safari is on over a billion devices and some of those potential customers might want to use your site. > maybe Safari is fine on the desktop because I don't own a Mac so I can't test it Other than some minor differences, the latest version of WebKit is essentially the same on iOS, macOS and iPadOS. It's pretty common to use something like CodePen [1] to demonstrate CSS and HTML features publicly. [1]: https://codepen.io/ https://codepen.io/

acdha 4y ago

The reason you’re getting negative reactions is because you made these huge sweeping generalizations which are untrue for most web developers but despite being so vehement they’re also entirely unverifiable. It’s certainly possible there’s some feature you hit which was buggy but despite hundreds of words we still have no idea where the alleged problem was – JavaScript, DOM, CSS, audio/video, Unicode support or text rendering, who knows?

alwillis 4y ago

> I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm being quite literal. I tried two or three times to support Safari. I gave up on it and I'm never going back. There's nothing special that has to be done to "support Safari" other than writing normal CSS, HTML and JavaScript just like for any other browser. Even if you used something experimental or Chrome-only, there are polyfills for most features. This only makes sense for a public facing website (e-commerce, for example), since Safari is on over a billion devices and some of those potential customers might want to use your site. > maybe Safari is fine on the desktop because I don't own a Mac so I can't test it Other than some minor differences, the latest version of WebKit is essentially the same on iOS, macOS and iPadOS. It's pretty common to use something like CodePen [1] to demonstrate CSS and HTML features publicly. [1]: https://codepen.io/ https://codepen.io/