9 ms·

I switched to a Safari-first approach for web development a while back and it has reduced my pain considerably. In fact I use it as my main daily driver browser

I switched to a Safari-first approach for web development a while back and it has reduced my pain considerably. In fact I use it as my main daily driver browser in general now. I've yet to run into a single case of some code running well on Safari but breaking on other major browsers, so by ensuring my code is compatible with Safari, I'm basically guaranteeing full compatibility with everything.

faitswulff 4y ago
This wouldn’t have helped the author, though, since their issues were contingent on what fixes were included in the actual releases.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  It's always been a web developer's job to workaround browser incompatibility issues. Expecting them all to be 100% compliant with specs is a mirage.
saagarjha 4y ago
Ok, but that doesn't actually help when you run into WebKit bugs.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It does because you notice you've run into a webkit bug and work around it. A surprisingly high number of sites have core functionality like signin, nav or payment broken on safari and apparently aren't aware of it.
lostgame 4y ago
This is an exceptionally smart outlook; and reflects my own experience - if something is wrong in my code in Safari it is usually wrong elsewhere. There's an important and cool concept here about using the weakest link sometimes. Similar example: as an app developer, I intentionally use a phone several, several generations behind so I can see what the actual response time and general UX feeling is on the devices frankly a lot of users are going to have. If my app runs well on my iPhone 8, it's obviously going to scream on a 12.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  Currently, my LET (Low-End Test) device is an original SE, running iOS 15. I also have a 4th gen iPad Mini, and an iPhone 8Plus (for the screen).
  - robinsonb5 4y ago
    For a moment there I thought you meant one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE
    - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      I started with a Plus.
5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
> "so by ensuring my code is compatible with Safari, I'm basically guaranteeing full compatibility with everything." Ah the sweet nectar of naivety. Godspeed to you. Can't believe I've been a webdev 15 years. What's old becomes new, except for me that is....
- illiarian 4y ago
  "Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds." https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
  - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
    >“Best viewed with Safari” notice? I mean you know there was a period of time where Safari existed and Chrome didn't.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    "the new IE" can mean two different things. 1. IE6, a titanic that that wants to harm the web so they can push their own ecosystem instead. 2. IE11, the incompetent and rarely updated browser that you have to support because a segment of your userbase is stuck with it. This article tries to argue 1 isn't the case, but I have to disagree. Safari isn't as large as IE6, but it regardless tries to fill the same role. Ensuring apple gets their app store cut. 2 is also the case, but that needs less argument.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > IE6, a titanic that that wants to harm the web so they can push their own ecosystem instead. What a retcon. > This article tries to argue 1 isn't the case, but I have to disagree. Safari isn't as large as IE6, but it regardless tries to fill the same role. Of course it doesn't > 2 is also the case, but that needs less argument. It needs as much argument, if not more.
Waterluvian 4y ago
This seems wise. It’s akin to developing for the slowest machine. I’m tempted. Though developing on Chrome just feels the best given the tools.
bioemerl 4y ago
This statement here should be seen as a crimson flashing red flag waving as madly as a person can wave. "Want global web compatibility? Fuck you buy a Mac" -Apple
- jojobas 4y ago
  Well who wouldn't want to be in position to dictate that your bugs have to be other peoples' specs?
- illiarian 4y ago
  > "Want global web compatibility? Fuck you buy a Mac" Still better than "whatever we throw over the wall is now a standard" that Chrome has, and you can see people clamouring for those on HN.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Not really in my experience as a primary Firefox dev. It's easy enough to not use stuff like web USB, and in my experience chrome and firefox "get along" while a page (doing more advanced things) not built for safari simply will not work in safari. The problem with safari is that Apple makes it so you have to use it if you want your site to work on it. Chrome, I can safely ignore. I also literally can't use safari if I don't have a Mac.
    - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
      > It's easy enough to not use stuff like web USB Unless you have the option to use it for your product then the decision is ship a product using just your web developers and have it not work on Safari/iPads or hire iOS developers and build and maintain a completely separate app. So it's a 6-7 figure cost to your business that could be saved if they supported that.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > while a page (doing more advanced things) not built for safari simply will not work in safari. I've yet to see such a page [1]. And I've been using Safari since 2007 [1] Unless it's built with Chrome's non-standards of course. Edit: of course there will be pages broken in Safari (or FF) for no reason other than the sheer incompetence of people building them. E.g. we have an internal dashboard page that is literally nothing more than tables and charts. Ooops, "only works in Chrome". There's also the minor case of nominally open audio and video codecs that Google pushes to device manufacturers on pain of removing access to its services, but even that hasn't affected me, or most people really, that much.
fHr 4y ago
2023 state of frontend testing still scares me
- folkrav 4y ago
  Whenever I look at the frontend QA loop vs. the backend at the places I've worked at, I'm glad I work in machine readable, typed, easier to test API land.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
folkrav 4y ago
Anecdotally, about half the frontend bugs that I see go through our JIRA at work seem Safari/iOS specific lol
- bzzzt 4y ago
  Probably because all the frontend people are using Chrome, so those bugs were already fixed.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    It’s ironic that the people who hate dealing with Safari are, though they would never admit it, actually complaining because they resent having to test in more than one browser. Let’s just throw in the towel now and rename the web to the Chrome Platform.
    - creeble 4y ago
      Or resent having to pay Apple to test in their browser.
      - simondotau 4y ago
        That’s simply wrong. You don’t have to pay Apple. Safari is just WebKit and WebKit browsers are available for Linux. Or depending on your tolerance for legal grey areas, you can also download MacOS directly from Apple servers and run it in a virtual machine. Or if your objection isn’t to paying money but rather paying Apple, you can buy second-hand hardware.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - selectodude 4y ago
        Good news! Microsoft makes a Webkit browser that's up to date with Safari's webkit version. https://github.com/microsoft/playwright https://github.com/microsoft/playwright
capableweb 4y ago
That would be a helpful process for more people to maybe look into, if it wasn't for the fact that most computers can't even run Safari, as it's not available on their platform, less than 10% worldwide who browse the web are using macOS.
- coldtea 4y ago
  A hella lot more are using iOS though.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Sure, but what's your suggestion? Load http://192.168.2.24 http://192.168.2.24 on your iPhone while you develop on your Windows machine? Seems unlikely this is a better workflow.
Eric_WVGG 4y ago
You're not wrong (I develop that way as well), but I'd wager that like me you're not neck deep in service workers and WASM and a "compression streams API." This isn't a Chrome vs Safari issue (Safari is better, of course), it's the fact that browser development suffers from Apple's corporate wall of silence. In this case, devs literally suffering.
tonetheman 4y ago
[dead]
ohgodplsno 4y ago
I switched to an Internet Explorer-first approach for web development, and it has reduced my problems considerably. In fact, I make my websites assume they will be viewed in a 640x480 viewport. I'm basically guaranteeing full compatibility with everything, because everyone has to comply with IE's behaviour. After all, I put a "Best viewed in Internet Explorer", this way if it fails, people blame their browser and not me.

faitswulff 4y ago

This wouldn’t have helped the author, though, since their issues were contingent on what fixes were included in the actual releases.

ricardobeat 4y ago
It's always been a web developer's job to workaround browser incompatibility issues. Expecting them all to be 100% compliant with specs is a mirage.

saagarjha 4y ago

Ok, but that doesn't actually help when you run into WebKit bugs.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
It does because you notice you've run into a webkit bug and work around it. A surprisingly high number of sites have core functionality like signin, nav or payment broken on safari and apparently aren't aware of it.

lostgame 4y ago

This is an exceptionally smart outlook; and reflects my own experience - if something is wrong in my code in Safari it is usually wrong elsewhere. There's an important and cool concept here about using the weakest link sometimes. Similar example: as an app developer, I intentionally use a phone several, several generations behind so I can see what the actual response time and general UX feeling is on the devices frankly a lot of users are going to have. If my app runs well on my iPhone 8, it's obviously going to scream on a 12.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
Currently, my LET (Low-End Test) device is an original SE, running iOS 15. I also have a 4th gen iPad Mini, and an iPhone 8Plus (for the screen).
- robinsonb5 4y ago
  For a moment there I thought you meant one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    I started with a Plus.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago

> "so by ensuring my code is compatible with Safari, I'm basically guaranteeing full compatibility with everything." Ah the sweet nectar of naivety. Godspeed to you. Can't believe I've been a webdev 15 years. What's old becomes new, except for me that is....

illiarian 4y ago
"Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds." https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  >“Best viewed with Safari” notice? I mean you know there was a period of time where Safari existed and Chrome didn't.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  "the new IE" can mean two different things. 1. IE6, a titanic that that wants to harm the web so they can push their own ecosystem instead. 2. IE11, the incompetent and rarely updated browser that you have to support because a segment of your userbase is stuck with it. This article tries to argue 1 isn't the case, but I have to disagree. Safari isn't as large as IE6, but it regardless tries to fill the same role. Ensuring apple gets their app store cut. 2 is also the case, but that needs less argument.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > IE6, a titanic that that wants to harm the web so they can push their own ecosystem instead. What a retcon. > This article tries to argue 1 isn't the case, but I have to disagree. Safari isn't as large as IE6, but it regardless tries to fill the same role. Of course it doesn't > 2 is also the case, but that needs less argument. It needs as much argument, if not more.

Waterluvian 4y ago

This seems wise. It’s akin to developing for the slowest machine. I’m tempted. Though developing on Chrome just feels the best given the tools.

bioemerl 4y ago

This statement here should be seen as a crimson flashing red flag waving as madly as a person can wave. "Want global web compatibility? Fuck you buy a Mac" -Apple

jojobas 4y ago
Well who wouldn't want to be in position to dictate that your bugs have to be other peoples' specs?
illiarian 4y ago
> "Want global web compatibility? Fuck you buy a Mac" Still better than "whatever we throw over the wall is now a standard" that Chrome has, and you can see people clamouring for those on HN.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Not really in my experience as a primary Firefox dev. It's easy enough to not use stuff like web USB, and in my experience chrome and firefox "get along" while a page (doing more advanced things) not built for safari simply will not work in safari. The problem with safari is that Apple makes it so you have to use it if you want your site to work on it. Chrome, I can safely ignore. I also literally can't use safari if I don't have a Mac.
  - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
    > It's easy enough to not use stuff like web USB Unless you have the option to use it for your product then the decision is ship a product using just your web developers and have it not work on Safari/iPads or hire iOS developers and build and maintain a completely separate app. So it's a 6-7 figure cost to your business that could be saved if they supported that.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > while a page (doing more advanced things) not built for safari simply will not work in safari. I've yet to see such a page [1]. And I've been using Safari since 2007 [1] Unless it's built with Chrome's non-standards of course. Edit: of course there will be pages broken in Safari (or FF) for no reason other than the sheer incompetence of people building them. E.g. we have an internal dashboard page that is literally nothing more than tables and charts. Ooops, "only works in Chrome". There's also the minor case of nominally open audio and video codecs that Google pushes to device manufacturers on pain of removing access to its services, but even that hasn't affected me, or most people really, that much.

fHr 4y ago

2023 state of frontend testing still scares me

folkrav 4y ago
Whenever I look at the frontend QA loop vs. the backend at the places I've worked at, I'm glad I work in machine readable, typed, easier to test API land.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

folkrav 4y ago

Anecdotally, about half the frontend bugs that I see go through our JIRA at work seem Safari/iOS specific lol

bzzzt 4y ago
Probably because all the frontend people are using Chrome, so those bugs were already fixed.
- simondotau 4y ago
  It’s ironic that the people who hate dealing with Safari are, though they would never admit it, actually complaining because they resent having to test in more than one browser. Let’s just throw in the towel now and rename the web to the Chrome Platform.
  - creeble 4y ago
    Or resent having to pay Apple to test in their browser.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      That’s simply wrong. You don’t have to pay Apple. Safari is just WebKit and WebKit browsers are available for Linux. Or depending on your tolerance for legal grey areas, you can also download MacOS directly from Apple servers and run it in a virtual machine. Or if your objection isn’t to paying money but rather paying Apple, you can buy second-hand hardware.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - selectodude 4y ago
      Good news! Microsoft makes a Webkit browser that's up to date with Safari's webkit version. https://github.com/microsoft/playwright https://github.com/microsoft/playwright

capableweb 4y ago

That would be a helpful process for more people to maybe look into, if it wasn't for the fact that most computers can't even run Safari, as it's not available on their platform, less than 10% worldwide who browse the web are using macOS.

coldtea 4y ago
A hella lot more are using iOS though.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Sure, but what's your suggestion? Load http://192.168.2.24 http://192.168.2.24 on your iPhone while you develop on your Windows machine? Seems unlikely this is a better workflow.

Eric_WVGG 4y ago

You're not wrong (I develop that way as well), but I'd wager that like me you're not neck deep in service workers and WASM and a "compression streams API." This isn't a Chrome vs Safari issue (Safari is better, of course), it's the fact that browser development suffers from Apple's corporate wall of silence. In this case, devs literally suffering.

tonetheman 4y ago

[dead]

ohgodplsno 4y ago

I switched to an Internet Explorer-first approach for web development, and it has reduced my problems considerably. In fact, I make my websites assume they will be viewed in a 640x480 viewport. I'm basically guaranteeing full compatibility with everything, because everyone has to comply with IE's behaviour. After all, I put a "Best viewed in Internet Explorer", this way if it fails, people blame their browser and not me.