4 ms·

This is a retarded decision which I do not support. IE6 fine, IE7 fine but not IE8. IE8 is required for most corporate environments where they haven't killed o

This is a retarded decision which I do not support. IE6 fine, IE7 fine but not IE8. IE8 is required for most corporate environments where they haven't killed of Windows XP yet. That is a surprisingly large amount of people. If this happens, we'll fork jQuery 1.9 and support it separately.

sanswork 14y ago
2 will come out in 2013 just a bit before Microsoft officially removes all support for XP. If your IT department hasn't made moves to upgrade everyone from XP by this point you have bigger issues to deal with than jQuery availability.
- gouranga 14y ago
  Forced obsolescence doesn't mean people aren't still using it and it doesn't mean that because Microsoft stop patching that it's still vulnerable. Using it after April 2014 is not a problem. The NHS in the UK has over 1 million Windows XP deployments out there still on NHSnet which is a nationwide secure private WAN. A lot of software vendors have to support that. Your view is popular but naive.
  - sanswork 14y ago
    Ok how about this then. If you're still supporting an unsupported OS why do you care about using the cutting edge version of a JS library?
    - karlshea 14y ago
      Yeah this is exactly the thing. It's not like 1.9 or 1.8 or even 1.4 will stop working in the future when the new versions are released. I duplicated a project for a client today that needed a one-page form and a two-page admin section, and I have only a couple of hours of budget to make it work. They don't care that it's running jQuery 1.3.x. It's working fine.
    - gouranga 14y ago
      Because historically jQuery has been a buggy pos that we've had to work around a lot.
      - sanswork 14y ago
        That argument doesn't really hold though. You're not upgrading your base(the OS) to fix the problems with it yet you're complaining about a minor(in the grand scheme of things) library removing support in a modern version. If your network is closed off like the NHS one you mention, why not just stick with the old versions you've already fixed? It's like complaining your 56' Chevy doesn't work with the new battery technology coming out in the Chevy Volt.
        gouranga 14y ago
        The problem comes is that the older versions that we've fixed have the fixes integrated in later versions. We really don't want to have to maintain the versions that we've fixed as that kills the entire value proposition of using it in the first place. It's nothing like the 56' Chevy / Volt analogy. The technology is the same - they just can't be bothered with supporting one vendor's product any more.
        sanswork 14y ago
        Why do those fixes matter? Again if you're in a closed environment then you can surely control the versions of a JS library. So fix it until it works in your space then move on. Them dropping support for your outdated choice of platform isn't a problem. Your desire to use cutting edge software with your outdated platform is the problem. Picking a platform and sticking with it is a nobel and occasionally needed position to have. Expecting everyone else to hold themselves back because you chose to do so is impossibly greedy however.
      - steve-sanderson 14y ago
        Really? That seems a little harsh. It's free, it's open source, and it's made web development hugely more productive for massive numbers of us for the last 5 years or so.

sanswork 14y ago

2 will come out in 2013 just a bit before Microsoft officially removes all support for XP. If your IT department hasn't made moves to upgrade everyone from XP by this point you have bigger issues to deal with than jQuery availability.

gouranga 14y ago
Forced obsolescence doesn't mean people aren't still using it and it doesn't mean that because Microsoft stop patching that it's still vulnerable. Using it after April 2014 is not a problem. The NHS in the UK has over 1 million Windows XP deployments out there still on NHSnet which is a nationwide secure private WAN. A lot of software vendors have to support that. Your view is popular but naive.
- sanswork 14y ago
  Ok how about this then. If you're still supporting an unsupported OS why do you care about using the cutting edge version of a JS library?
  - karlshea 14y ago
    Yeah this is exactly the thing. It's not like 1.9 or 1.8 or even 1.4 will stop working in the future when the new versions are released. I duplicated a project for a client today that needed a one-page form and a two-page admin section, and I have only a couple of hours of budget to make it work. They don't care that it's running jQuery 1.3.x. It's working fine.
  - gouranga 14y ago
    Because historically jQuery has been a buggy pos that we've had to work around a lot.
    - sanswork 14y ago
      That argument doesn't really hold though. You're not upgrading your base(the OS) to fix the problems with it yet you're complaining about a minor(in the grand scheme of things) library removing support in a modern version. If your network is closed off like the NHS one you mention, why not just stick with the old versions you've already fixed? It's like complaining your 56' Chevy doesn't work with the new battery technology coming out in the Chevy Volt.
      - gouranga 14y ago
        The problem comes is that the older versions that we've fixed have the fixes integrated in later versions. We really don't want to have to maintain the versions that we've fixed as that kills the entire value proposition of using it in the first place. It's nothing like the 56' Chevy / Volt analogy. The technology is the same - they just can't be bothered with supporting one vendor's product any more.
        sanswork 14y ago
        Why do those fixes matter? Again if you're in a closed environment then you can surely control the versions of a JS library. So fix it until it works in your space then move on. Them dropping support for your outdated choice of platform isn't a problem. Your desire to use cutting edge software with your outdated platform is the problem. Picking a platform and sticking with it is a nobel and occasionally needed position to have. Expecting everyone else to hold themselves back because you chose to do so is impossibly greedy however.
    - steve-sanderson 14y ago
      Really? That seems a little harsh. It's free, it's open source, and it's made web development hugely more productive for massive numbers of us for the last 5 years or so.