6 ms·

> instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application I am confused. - The "shipping Chrome alongside their application" part s

> instead of learning Web standards, rather ships Chrome alongside their application I am confused. - The "shipping Chrome alongside their application" part seems to refer to Electron; but Electron is hardly guilty of what is described in the article. - The "learning web standards" bit seems to impune web developers; but how are they guilty of the Chrome monopoly? If anything, they are guilty of shipping react apps instead of learning web standards; but react apps work equally well (or poorly) in all major browsers. - Finally, how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them.

paulryanrogers 1y ago
> how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them. They have so much market share that they control the standards bodies. The tail wags the dog.
- JimDabell 1y ago
  This is not true yet, but it’s getting close. The pattern is this: - Google publishes a specification. - They raise request for feedback from the Mozilla and WebKit teams. - Mozilla and WebKit find security and privacy problems. - Google deploys their implementation anyway. - This functionality gets listed on sites like whatpwacando.today - Web developers complain about Safari being behind and accuse Apple of holding back the web. - Nobody gives a shit about Firefox. So we have two key problems, but neither of them are “Google controls the standards bodies”. The problem is that they don’t need to. Firstly, a lot of web developers have stopped caring about the standards process. Whatever functionality Google adds is their definition of “the web”. This happened at the height of Internet Explorer dominance too. A huge number of web developers would happily write Internet Explorer-only sites and this monoculture damaged the web immensely. Chrome is the new Internet Explorer. The second problem is that nobody cares about Firefox any more. The standards process doesn’t really work when there are only two main players. At the moment, you can honestly say “Look, the standards process is that any standard needs two interoperable implementations. If Google can’t convince anybody outside of Google to implement something, it can’t be a standard.” This makes the unsuitability of those proposals a lot plainer to see. But now that Firefox market share has vanished, that argument is turning into “Google and Apple disagree about whether to add functionality to the web”. This hides the unsuitability of those proposals. This too has happened before – this is how the web worked when Internet Explorer was battling Netscape Navigator for dominance in the 90s, where browsers were adding all kinds of stupid things unilaterally. Again, Chrome is the new Internet Explorer. The web standards process desperately needs either Firefox to regain standing or for a new independent rendering engine (maybe Ladybird?) to arise. And web developers need to stop treating everything that Google craps out as if it’s a done deal. Google don’t and shouldn’t control the definition of the web. We’ve seen that before, and a monoculture like that paralyses the industry.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    They are at the edge of transforming the Web into ChromeOS Platform, with the complacency of everyone that helped it become a reality.
    - flkenosad 1y ago
      At least chromeos is open source. We can fork it anytime. You'd rather everyone run ios or windows?
      - lillecarl 1y ago
        Open source in code but not in spirit, you "can't" contribute to ChromeOS without being a Google employee or some special person
  - carlosjobim 1y ago
    > Firstly, a lot of web developers have stopped caring about the standards process. Whatever functionality Google adds is their definition of “the web”. Businesses who hire such web developers will lose huge amounts of sales, since 90% of visitors are on mobile and half of those are on Safari.
    - JimDabell 1y ago
      How do you think that’s going to play out once Apple are legally barred from mandating WebKit on iOS?
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        Web will finally become ChromeOS, takeover goal achieved.
        paulryanrogers 1y ago
        Or other engines gain a foothold and web devs have to go back to standards.
pjmlp 1y ago
Web features being pushed by Google via Chrome, aren't standards, unless everyone actually agrees they are worthy of becoming one. Shipping Electron junk, strengthens Google and Chrome market presence, and the reference to Web standards, why bother when it is whatever Chrome is capable of. Web devs with worthy skills of forgotten times, would rather use regular processes alongside the default system browser.
- duped 1y ago
  There are no realistic alternatives to Electron. So calling it "junk" when its the baseline for "cross platform GUI application" is nonsense. I get that you don't like it, so go build an alternative.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    The alternative already exists, processes using the system browser, for several decades now. Or actually learn how we use to ship software on the glory days of 8, 16 and 32 bit home platforms. Now I do agree there are no alternatives for people that only care about shipping ChromeOS all over the place.
    - JimDabell 1y ago
      > The alternative already exists, processes using the system browser, for several decades now. Yes, Windows supported Electron-like applications back in the 90s with HTAs. If you want something modern and cross-platform, Tauri does this: https://v2.tauri.app https://v2.tauri.app
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      You can't trust the system browser to be up to date and secure or for it to render things how you want. You can not guarantee a good user experience unless you ship the browser engine with your app.
      - lillecarl 1y ago
quacksilver 1y ago
Devs, particularly those with pressure to ship or who don't know better, unfortunately see 'it works in Chrome' as 'it works', even if it is a quirk of Chrome that causes it to work, or if they use Chrome related hacks that break compatibility with other browsers to get it to work in Chrome. - Sometimes the standards don't define some exact behavior and it is left for the browser implementer to come up with. Chrome implements it one way and other browsers implement it the other way. Both are compatible with the standards. - Sometimes the app contains errors, but certain permissive behaviors of Chrome mean it works ok and the app is shipped. The developers work around the guesses that Chrome makes and cobble the app together. (there may be a load of warnings in the console). Other browsers don't make the same guesses so the app is shipped in a state that it will only work on Chrome. - Sometimes Chrome (or mobile Safari) specific APIs or functions are used as people don't know any better. - Some security / WAF / anti-bot software relies on Chrome specific JavaScript quirks (that there may be no standards for) and thinks that the user using Firefox or another browser that isn't Chrome or iOS safari is a bot and blocks them. In many ways, Chrome is the new IE, through no fault of Google or the authors of other browsers.
- lowwave 1y ago
  Before shipping any web site/app, make sure it works in Apple Safari Mobile is usually the one that is dragging it is foot in Web Standards.
  - meindnoch 1y ago
    Web Standards™ [1] __________________ [1] some feature a Chrome engineer decided to implement, to boost their yearly performance review
  - gus_tpm 1y ago
    Even in portugal/spain se have to worry about this. Safari mobile users are a minority here but they usually spend or have more money to spend
    - meindnoch 1y ago
badgersnake 1y ago
> how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them. Easy when they make Chrome do whatever they want and call it a living standard (whatever that is). There is no such thing as web standards now.

paulryanrogers 1y ago

> how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them. They have so much market share that they control the standards bodies. The tail wags the dog.

JimDabell 1y ago
This is not true yet, but it’s getting close. The pattern is this: - Google publishes a specification. - They raise request for feedback from the Mozilla and WebKit teams. - Mozilla and WebKit find security and privacy problems. - Google deploys their implementation anyway. - This functionality gets listed on sites like whatpwacando.today - Web developers complain about Safari being behind and accuse Apple of holding back the web. - Nobody gives a shit about Firefox. So we have two key problems, but neither of them are “Google controls the standards bodies”. The problem is that they don’t need to. Firstly, a lot of web developers have stopped caring about the standards process. Whatever functionality Google adds is their definition of “the web”. This happened at the height of Internet Explorer dominance too. A huge number of web developers would happily write Internet Explorer-only sites and this monoculture damaged the web immensely. Chrome is the new Internet Explorer. The second problem is that nobody cares about Firefox any more. The standards process doesn’t really work when there are only two main players. At the moment, you can honestly say “Look, the standards process is that any standard needs two interoperable implementations. If Google can’t convince anybody outside of Google to implement something, it can’t be a standard.” This makes the unsuitability of those proposals a lot plainer to see. But now that Firefox market share has vanished, that argument is turning into “Google and Apple disagree about whether to add functionality to the web”. This hides the unsuitability of those proposals. This too has happened before – this is how the web worked when Internet Explorer was battling Netscape Navigator for dominance in the 90s, where browsers were adding all kinds of stupid things unilaterally. Again, Chrome is the new Internet Explorer. The web standards process desperately needs either Firefox to regain standing or for a new independent rendering engine (maybe Ladybird?) to arise. And web developers need to stop treating everything that Google craps out as if it’s a done deal. Google don’t and shouldn’t control the definition of the web. We’ve seen that before, and a monoculture like that paralyses the industry.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  They are at the edge of transforming the Web into ChromeOS Platform, with the complacency of everyone that helped it become a reality.
  - flkenosad 1y ago
    At least chromeos is open source. We can fork it anytime. You'd rather everyone run ios or windows?
    - lillecarl 1y ago
      Open source in code but not in spirit, you "can't" contribute to ChromeOS without being a Google employee or some special person
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  > Firstly, a lot of web developers have stopped caring about the standards process. Whatever functionality Google adds is their definition of “the web”. Businesses who hire such web developers will lose huge amounts of sales, since 90% of visitors are on mobile and half of those are on Safari.
  - JimDabell 1y ago
    How do you think that’s going to play out once Apple are legally barred from mandating WebKit on iOS?
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Web will finally become ChromeOS, takeover goal achieved.
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        Or other engines gain a foothold and web devs have to go back to standards.

pjmlp 1y ago

Web features being pushed by Google via Chrome, aren't standards, unless everyone actually agrees they are worthy of becoming one. Shipping Electron junk, strengthens Google and Chrome market presence, and the reference to Web standards, why bother when it is whatever Chrome is capable of. Web devs with worthy skills of forgotten times, would rather use regular processes alongside the default system browser.

duped 1y ago
There are no realistic alternatives to Electron. So calling it "junk" when its the baseline for "cross platform GUI application" is nonsense. I get that you don't like it, so go build an alternative.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  The alternative already exists, processes using the system browser, for several decades now. Or actually learn how we use to ship software on the glory days of 8, 16 and 32 bit home platforms. Now I do agree there are no alternatives for people that only care about shipping ChromeOS all over the place.
  - JimDabell 1y ago
    > The alternative already exists, processes using the system browser, for several decades now. Yes, Windows supported Electron-like applications back in the 90s with HTAs. If you want something modern and cross-platform, Tauri does this: https://v2.tauri.app https://v2.tauri.app
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    You can't trust the system browser to be up to date and secure or for it to render things how you want. You can not guarantee a good user experience unless you ship the browser engine with your app.
    - lillecarl 1y ago

quacksilver 1y ago

Devs, particularly those with pressure to ship or who don't know better, unfortunately see 'it works in Chrome' as 'it works', even if it is a quirk of Chrome that causes it to work, or if they use Chrome related hacks that break compatibility with other browsers to get it to work in Chrome. - Sometimes the standards don't define some exact behavior and it is left for the browser implementer to come up with. Chrome implements it one way and other browsers implement it the other way. Both are compatible with the standards. - Sometimes the app contains errors, but certain permissive behaviors of Chrome mean it works ok and the app is shipped. The developers work around the guesses that Chrome makes and cobble the app together. (there may be a load of warnings in the console). Other browsers don't make the same guesses so the app is shipped in a state that it will only work on Chrome. - Sometimes Chrome (or mobile Safari) specific APIs or functions are used as people don't know any better. - Some security / WAF / anti-bot software relies on Chrome specific JavaScript quirks (that there may be no standards for) and thinks that the user using Firefox or another browser that isn't Chrome or iOS safari is a bot and blocks them. In many ways, Chrome is the new IE, through no fault of Google or the authors of other browsers.

lowwave 1y ago
Before shipping any web site/app, make sure it works in Apple Safari Mobile is usually the one that is dragging it is foot in Web Standards.
- meindnoch 1y ago
  Web Standards™ [1] __________________ [1] some feature a Chrome engineer decided to implement, to boost their yearly performance review
- gus_tpm 1y ago
  Even in portugal/spain se have to worry about this. Safari mobile users are a minority here but they usually spend or have more money to spend
  - meindnoch 1y ago

badgersnake 1y ago

> how is Chrome incompatible with web standards? It is one of the best implementer of them. Easy when they make Chrome do whatever they want and call it a living standard (whatever that is). There is no such thing as web standards now.