3 ms·

For me, a Firefox user, I don't share your point of view. I see a lot more "optimized for Chrome" or "run this in Chrome because that is the only browser we dec

• masklinn 4y ago
  Yeah the kids don’t remember the bad days. It was not just that IE was broken in all sort of very odd ways, or that it was incompatible with the rest (and standard), or that it was essentially a monopoly. It was all three. So a site built for IE would not work at all in other browsers if it used anything remotely advanced (and advanced back then was users events), you had to support IE to live (on anything but demo site), and doing so was hell on earth because the bugs went from top to bottom (the browser’s memory management had to be worked around, and there were no memory profiler, hell the debuggers only worked half the time). Not that it’s any fun encountering a buggy browser, even less so when a feature is so broken you’d be better off if it were not supported and just did nothing or used a fallback and you now have to coerce it into that, and it does seem to be a recurring issue of safari. But it’s no IE, at this point you’d need malice aforethought to get there.
• masswerk 4y ago
  Also, typed arrays being slower than normal arrays for years on Chrome (and therefor pretty useless), Chrome breaking audio buffer playback for several major iterations, etc. This "whatever Chrome does is the standard" attitude reminds somewhat of the days of IE6 devs.