> Historical issues for who, exactly? Historical issues for developers like me. You are literally describing a solution, it might be a solution that you don't

> Historical issues for who, exactly? Historical issues for developers like me. You are literally describing a solution, it might be a solution that you don't like but it is a solution that makes it so developers don't have to worry about random things breaking for no reason. AFAIK the solution is to have the applications install the version of the dll that they use, if Windows is 15gb with no applications (which seems like an exaggeration to me) then I think that is largely incidental. > for major OS vendors until the specifications were finally more-or-less set in stone Again explicitly invoking historical events. > It's absolutely unacceptable to keep around support for every version of HTML and JavaScript and CSS ever, especially when some of the versions are contradictory That is totally fine, but it makes browsers something that no developer other than bleeding edge early adopters and crappy social media game developers can reasonably support. No one cares if they are as painful as desktop development was 15 years ago, developing for 1997 desktops isn't an option today, my entire point is that developing games on the web today are like developing games in 1997 which is awful. In 1997 you had no other choice; the options are any of a dozen mature platforms (desktop, mobile apps, consoles, handhelds) or else trying to juggle about 6 wildly incompatible and buggy browser environments where all of them are either too old to even support features that you want, or else a moving target that is changing literally every week in a way that is transparent to the user, which means you get blamed for the breakage when you could have done nothing to avoid it.