4 ms·

> "A Complete Guide to Flexbox" is probably my most referenced article. I'll just put it out there that web.dev is becoming a more and more awesome resource to

> "A Complete Guide to Flexbox" is probably my most referenced article. I'll just put it out there that web.dev is becoming a more and more awesome resource to learn web technologies. Their page on flexbox is very detailed: https://web.dev/learn/css/flexbox/ https://web.dev/learn/css/flexbox/

codetrotter 4y ago
But that site is owned by Google :(
- azangru 4y ago
  And MDN is owned by Mozilla :-) Between the two of them, I think we've got ourselves covered.
  - codetrotter 4y ago
    Yes MDN is excellent
  - enumjorge 4y ago
    It’s more than web.dev simply being owned by Google, at times the site feels like content marketing for Chrome and not just a resource to learn about web development. I’ve seen them post multiple articles about the latest Chrome-only updates, while I’ve never seen MDN promote content that only focuses on Firefox. Not to say MDN has never done that, but at least to me, web.dev has a definite Chrome bent that you wouldn’t expect from the way the site initially presents itself.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      > I’ve never seen MDN promote content that only focuses on Firefox They do, which I think is totally fine: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Firefox_differentiators https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
      - kevincox 4y ago
        Fair point but this is also directly labeled as stuff. Most of the Chrome-only stuff on web.dev barely tells you that. It is at most a footnote that this isn't available in most browsers and that the other browsers may actually be opposed to implementing the Chrome proposal.
    - waldothedog 4y ago
      100% is content marketing for chrome
Semaphor 4y ago
I find the CSS-Tricks page clearer and more concise. Maybe it’s because I want a reference and not a tutorial.
lol768 4y ago
web.dev is a resource for learning how to write code for Chrome. There are entire articles about Chrome-only "standards" with barely a footnote about how controversial the standards are and that e.g. Mozilla considers them harmful on their standards positions site: https://web.dev/signed-exchanges/ https://web.dev/signed-exchanges/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5sJ1KihTuZe-AXX1r8P-8/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5s... web.dev itself should be considered harmful. It is not impartial, and does not equip web developers with a good understanding of what is currently supported in a range of modern rendering/JS engines in 2023. A rendering engine monoculture is a bad thing for everyone and that's what resources like this one are encouraging.
- jpgvm 4y ago
  A mono-browser-engine culture is no more harmful than a mono-kernel culture. It's worked great for Linux (despite the existence of POSIX) and work likely work great for browsers too. Unfortunately there is too much meat on the bone and commercial interests would never cede that power to a community effort like Linux. Browsers could still be dime a dozen but with a shared engine core we could have results instead of bickering over standards and implementation differences.
  - asddubs 4y ago
    yes it is, we've already seen this with the retiring of webmanifest v2. a kernel is less commercially interesting, and doesn't allow you to screw over your users for personal gain in the same way.
    - jamespo 4y ago
      To add to this, Linus is obsessive about not breaking userspace
    - jpgvm 4y ago
      That wouldn't happen under community leadership ala Linux. Linux pretty much never breaks userspace. Instead what you are seeing is the exact problem of overriding commercial interests and no restraint on individual parties because they all have their own little fiefdom to rule over. A single browser engine wouldn't be the problem, it would be a great boon in many ways. The problem has been and remains that there is too much commercial bullshit getting pushed down into the browser engine rather than being matters of porcelain exactly because there is so much resistance to a fully FLOSS core. Apple and Google are both to blame here for different reasons. Apple wants browser engines to mostly suck, especially on iOS. Google wants browser engines to be good but not be capable of restricting telemetry or blocking adverts. However neither of those concerns require having their own engine, proof being that they were both able to share Webkit for a period of time. Mozilla isn't blameless in this. They push the whole standardisation angle in a desperate plea for relevance while wasting resources on non-browser projects. Their efforts to "protect standardisation" cost us things like WebSQL, created a massive rift during the HTML5 and XHTML years and resulted in relentless addition of complexity. I'm not saying they haven't done good, if anything I think Mozilla generally speaking has done the most good but they too have contributed to the clusterfuck. Ironically MS has done very little wrong since the IE10 days, they basically threw in the towel and just use Blink now which is good (minus Google doing shitty things with it). If we could end up in a place where Blink is developed in a similar way to Linux that -would- be good. It's generally the most advanced engine would be easiest to adapt the Webkit improvements that Safari has made and is already used in many other browser porcelains. I don't see a way there yet but my point isn't that a path exists but that an end point potentially exists. Google Bad, etc is true but if that could be fixed a mono-engine situation would be drastically better overall. Waste less time, less incompatibility problems, better web for everyone. (which is why Apple would never be on board but whatever).
PaulHoule 4y ago
That page is much worse than the one from CSS tricks. That Google site is a real site for sore eyes.

codetrotter 4y ago

But that site is owned by Google :(

azangru 4y ago
And MDN is owned by Mozilla :-) Between the two of them, I think we've got ourselves covered.
- codetrotter 4y ago
  Yes MDN is excellent
- enumjorge 4y ago
  It’s more than web.dev simply being owned by Google, at times the site feels like content marketing for Chrome and not just a resource to learn about web development. I’ve seen them post multiple articles about the latest Chrome-only updates, while I’ve never seen MDN promote content that only focuses on Firefox. Not to say MDN has never done that, but at least to me, web.dev has a definite Chrome bent that you wouldn’t expect from the way the site initially presents itself.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    > I’ve never seen MDN promote content that only focuses on Firefox They do, which I think is totally fine: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Firefox_differentiators https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
    - kevincox 4y ago
      Fair point but this is also directly labeled as stuff. Most of the Chrome-only stuff on web.dev barely tells you that. It is at most a footnote that this isn't available in most browsers and that the other browsers may actually be opposed to implementing the Chrome proposal.
  - waldothedog 4y ago
    100% is content marketing for chrome

Semaphor 4y ago

I find the CSS-Tricks page clearer and more concise. Maybe it’s because I want a reference and not a tutorial.

lol768 4y ago

web.dev is a resource for learning how to write code for Chrome. There are entire articles about Chrome-only "standards" with barely a footnote about how controversial the standards are and that e.g. Mozilla considers them harmful on their standards positions site: https://web.dev/signed-exchanges/ https://web.dev/signed-exchanges/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5sJ1KihTuZe-AXX1r8P-8/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5s... web.dev itself should be considered harmful. It is not impartial, and does not equip web developers with a good understanding of what is currently supported in a range of modern rendering/JS engines in 2023. A rendering engine monoculture is a bad thing for everyone and that's what resources like this one are encouraging.

jpgvm 4y ago
A mono-browser-engine culture is no more harmful than a mono-kernel culture. It's worked great for Linux (despite the existence of POSIX) and work likely work great for browsers too. Unfortunately there is too much meat on the bone and commercial interests would never cede that power to a community effort like Linux. Browsers could still be dime a dozen but with a shared engine core we could have results instead of bickering over standards and implementation differences.
- asddubs 4y ago
  yes it is, we've already seen this with the retiring of webmanifest v2. a kernel is less commercially interesting, and doesn't allow you to screw over your users for personal gain in the same way.
  - jamespo 4y ago
    To add to this, Linus is obsessive about not breaking userspace
  - jpgvm 4y ago
    That wouldn't happen under community leadership ala Linux. Linux pretty much never breaks userspace. Instead what you are seeing is the exact problem of overriding commercial interests and no restraint on individual parties because they all have their own little fiefdom to rule over. A single browser engine wouldn't be the problem, it would be a great boon in many ways. The problem has been and remains that there is too much commercial bullshit getting pushed down into the browser engine rather than being matters of porcelain exactly because there is so much resistance to a fully FLOSS core. Apple and Google are both to blame here for different reasons. Apple wants browser engines to mostly suck, especially on iOS. Google wants browser engines to be good but not be capable of restricting telemetry or blocking adverts. However neither of those concerns require having their own engine, proof being that they were both able to share Webkit for a period of time. Mozilla isn't blameless in this. They push the whole standardisation angle in a desperate plea for relevance while wasting resources on non-browser projects. Their efforts to "protect standardisation" cost us things like WebSQL, created a massive rift during the HTML5 and XHTML years and resulted in relentless addition of complexity. I'm not saying they haven't done good, if anything I think Mozilla generally speaking has done the most good but they too have contributed to the clusterfuck. Ironically MS has done very little wrong since the IE10 days, they basically threw in the towel and just use Blink now which is good (minus Google doing shitty things with it). If we could end up in a place where Blink is developed in a similar way to Linux that -would- be good. It's generally the most advanced engine would be easiest to adapt the Webkit improvements that Safari has made and is already used in many other browser porcelains. I don't see a way there yet but my point isn't that a path exists but that an end point potentially exists. Google Bad, etc is true but if that could be fixed a mono-engine situation would be drastically better overall. Waste less time, less incompatibility problems, better web for everyone. (which is why Apple would never be on board but whatever).

PaulHoule 4y ago

That page is much worse than the one from CSS tricks. That Google site is a real site for sore eyes.