4 ms·
Question really is whether supporting it costs less than 1% of your total revenue. John Resig has said that very little of jQuery source is IE6-specific. That
by moomin 15y ago
Question really is whether supporting it costs less than 1% of your total revenue. John Resig has said that very little of jQuery source is IE6-specific. That is to say, supporting IE7 and IE8 is a pain in the neck, and IE6 comes along for the ride.
- bad_user 15y agoWhich is why I don't understand the focus on IExplorer 6, as IE 7 is equally shitty and IE 8 is not that far behind.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- cheald 15y agoMaybe in terms of Javascript, but IE has so many frustrating CSS bugs that aren't as bad in 7/8 that I draw a very clear mental distinction between them.
- nostrademons 15y agoAnother major point is testing & debugging. IE6 had a basically useless JS debugger. For IE7 & 8, you can at least use IE8's developer tools to pinpoint a bug and fix it (IE8 comes with IE7's rendering engine built in). With IE6, you're very often stuck looking at Fiddler dumps or binary-chopping lines out of your programming until you've pinpointed the error. Back when Google Search still supported IE6 as a first-class citizen, I found that very few lines of code were needed to make IE6 work. However, figuring out what those lines of code were could easily take more time than making it work in every other browser. Just the amount of time lost because I accidentally included a trailing comma made me want to throw my Windows laptop across the room.
- yuhong 15y agoIE6 did not ship a JS debugger at all, actually. You needed Microsoft Script Debugger or Visual Studio.