11 ms·

Sorry if I seem cranky, but did you READ the blog post? jQuery 1.9 supports those browsers and the jQuery team still supports it. Do you have a problem with us

Sorry if I seem cranky, but did you READ the blog post? jQuery 1.9 supports those browsers and the jQuery team still supports it. Do you have a problem with us supporting a second version that can be smaller, faster, and work in places other than obsolete browsers?

philh 14y ago
It looks to me like he's worried (or saying that other people are/might be worried) about how long 1.9 will continue to be supported for.
- jhack 14y ago
  From the post: "...we’ve got jQuery 1.x to handle older browsers and fully expect to support it for several more years."
  - philh 14y ago
    I skimmed to see if they'd already addressed that, but apparently I missed it. Thanks.
  - gcr 14y ago
    Exactly. What does "several" mean? Are we talking two years? Five? A decade? Until jQuery changes their minds?
    - Andrex 14y ago
      How relevant will IE8 be in just two years, though? If it's 3-5 which is what it sounds like, then that's just more of a nail in the coffin for IE8 support.
      - dspillett 14y ago
        > How relevant will IE8 be in just two years, though? That very much depends on your target audience. For home users IE8 is pretty much dead already, the only subset of people stuck there are the few who are using XP and have not switched to Firefox/Chrome/other. As more and more game-y things on the web start demanding newer features rather than creating/using/supporting fallback options for IE8 (canvas in particular). In more corporate environments, IE8 is often still king and will be for several years. Most of the clients for the product I spend most of the working day panel beating are large banks and most of them have only just migrated to IE8 from IE6 because they have to soon (IE6 falls out of extended support in less than 12 months, along with XP+sp3). If they follow the same pattern (and I see little reason why they won't, slow moving mammoths that they are) I and many others will have to be concerned about IE8 until at least 2018 as IE8 falls out of extended support in 2020 (as it's support windows are tied to Windows 7's). Hopefully jQuery's idea of "several years" is as least as long as this.
        acdha 14y ago
        XP falls out of support next year: any bank using it would be going against very strong security guidance from Microsoft. Once you're on non-antique Windows, there's nothing preventing you from going all the way to IE10 which, again, starts getting into situations where not upgrading for security reasons starts approaching negligence.
        dspillett 14y ago
        > XP falls out of support next year But Vista and 7 do not, and you can can run IE8 on them just fine. IE8 itself is supported as long as Windows 7 is, which is Janurary 2020 for the extended support phase. > Once you're on non-antique Windows, there's nothing preventing you from going all the way to IE10 Nothing. Nothing at all. Unless you consider a large collection of legacy applications that either just plain don't work in anything other than legacy IE or simply haven't been tested (and signed-off as compatible and SLA-covered by the supplier) in anything else. They can't take the risk of not getting getting those apps thoroughly tested before upgrading and that will cost money (as will any changes, or complete replacemets, needed) and more importantly a huge amount of time (nothing moves quickly inside a bank no matter how hard enthustic and/or concerned people push - organisations of that size have trouble working up the inertia for significant internal changes). My suggestion has always been to install something else alongside IE and migrate that way: keeping IE around for those applications that require it (or have not been signed-off as working well on something else) but having something better for applications that don't rely on "classic" IE's excetricities. I get funny looks for that suggestion though - the thought of training users to cope with two programs where they once had one seems to trike TS people cold. > approaching negligence One of the key drivers working against building up change inertia is fear of neglidence (or accusations there-of). Large organisations have a significan aversion to risk, organisations within regulated industries (where you may do more than fail: you may fail and pick up a hefty fine and/or loss of license along the way) in particular, if they were people you'd probably call them neurotic on the matter. Change without sufficient plannig is a form of negligence, and fear of this is a large part of what adds friction to any forward movement.
    - coldtea 14y ago
      Whereas if they said explicitly "we will support it for 5 more years" how would have changed anything? They can change their minds at any time, and it's not like you can sue them or anything. Not to mention that the whole question is moot, for reasons I states on my comment above.
    - reeses 14y ago
      Excellent opportunity to start a company with a paid support model.
    - dmethvin 14y ago
      That last one. Given our past record on supporting things you shouldn't be too worried. But if you are, go to our GitHub project and click the Fork button.
      - vincentkriek 14y ago
        Although I am probably just being a stupid person, I really dislike this argument "If you don't like it, fix it yourself". While it might feel offensive that people are complaining left and right about the new version, it is actually a compliment. I am not trying to be a love-all hippie here, but people are complaining because they really fucking love the solution jQuery put out there to support multiple browsers. Don't feel offended, feel proud.
        nathan_long 14y ago
        I wouldn't call it "if you don't like it, fix it yourself." I'd call it "you need code that does X? We don't have that, but we have something that does 99.9% of X, and you can have it for free!"
    - acdha 14y ago
      IE8 dropped under 10% for me last month. Several years seems fine to me.
      - talmand 14y ago
        Well then, be sure to let us know which browsers we should be worried over supporting with your analytics from a few years from now.
        acdha 14y ago
        Try Akamai's global CDN stats showing similar numbers: http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset.html#stat=browser_ver&top=5&type=line&start=20130318&end=20130417&net=both http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset.html#stat=browser_v...
        talmand 14y ago
        Ok, what if my analytics disagree with their analytics? That was my point. Every website's needs will be slightly different than others. The point is that someone saying "I don't need to support browser X" doesn't mean that everyone else can stop supporting browser X.
  - ajslater 14y ago
    "You can (and should) continue to use jQuery 1.9 (and the upcoming 1.10) on web sites that need to accommodate older browsers."
- coldtea 14y ago
  Well, it's an open source community project so the answer is obvious. 1.9 will be supported for as long as people care about to support it. Do those complaining want to somehow tell the developers what they should be working on? Where does the sense of entitlement come? Even if the whole core team insists on going 2.0 only at some point (high unlikely), it's not like it needs any highly technical skills for interested people to jump in and maintain 1.9. Most of the stuff has been stable for ages, and small fixes are easy to add if needed.
  - EnderMB 14y ago
    > 1.9 will be supported for as long as people care about to support it. This is what worries me. You only need to spend an hour on HN or Reddit to see that web devs couldn't care less about legacy browsers, even when most businesses need to support them. I support the decision to fork jQuery, but I too am worried about whether the 1.x branch will continue to be supported, and also whether we'll see people releasing plugins that work well for both versions. It sounds like a 1.9 plugin will largely work on 2.0, and vice versa, but we'll have to see.
    - coldtea 14y ago
      >This is what worries me. You only need to spend an hour on HN or Reddit to see that web devs couldn't care less about legacy browsers, even when most businesses need to support them. As I wrote, even if the whole core team insists on going 2.0 only at some point (high unlikely), it's not like it needs any highly technical skills for interested people to jump in and maintain 1.9. >I support the decision to fork jQuery, but I too am worried about whether the 1.x branch will continue to be supported, You worry too much. You can use 1.9. 1.8, 1.7, even 1.6 indefinitely. It's not like they would stop working on old browsers for some reason. I have websites that serve 2-3 jQuery versions behind, and they work just as well in any old and modern browser, including using several plugins (and a matching jQuery UI). So why do you even need to upgrade to 1.9 for the next 3-4 years? Not to mention they also said they'll release 1.10. Seriously, people, this is a non problem. Want to continue supporting IE6? 1) Trust the jQuery team and use 10.9, and eventually, 1.10. 2) Continue using 10.9, 10.8, 10.7 etc indefinitely. They still work on the latest browsers, and of course they will work forever on the older ones. 3) Go in 10.9 and fix any incompatibility you find with the latest browsers yourself. Or wait for someone of the multi-million strong web dev community to do it for you.
oneeyedpigeon 14y ago
Did you consider an alternative to major version bumping, e.g. a slightly different name for this fork, such as jQuery-slim ... or a much better name? :-) I think the problem is that 2.0 just implies 'better' to such an extent that a lot of people will be concerned about 1.9's imminent sunsetting.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  If you think about it it's like how Microsoft have handled MSIE. They've dropped support for older OS, ie XP and earlier, in IE9 but are still offering support/patches for IE8.
  - yuhong 14y ago
    In fact, they actually support all the versions of IE supported on a given Windows version using the lifecycle of that Windows version. I personally have a MSRC case pending against IE7 on XP.
tambourine_man 14y ago
I do. The final 2.0.0 file is 12 percent smaller than the 1.9.1 file, thanks to the elimination of patches that were only needed for IE 6, 7, and 8. Dropping IE 6, 7 and 8 support for a 12% smaller file size while effectively forking your code base for the foreseeable future is a lousy decision. Increase complexity tremendously for what, 3-4 KB when gzipped?
- reeses 14y ago
  Actually, it's decreasing complexity and getting a happy side effect of a 12% smaller file. It was probably a mistake to add the file size difference as a benefit, as it has obviously confused a lot of people who appear to have perceived it as a primary design goal.
  - tracker1 14y ago
    I'll say the size drop is the primary reason I'm going through having the browser tags for ie lt 9, vs other... even though 3-4K isn't much, that's quite a few packets on mobile (though there is Zepto, it's nowhere near complete enough for a lot of needs). I'm working on some revamped UI at the moment, and so far the script load (uglified, not gzipped) is around 250K, anything that can get that down imho is a good thing.
- geon 14y ago
  The article also says they hoped to remove more, but early android browsers became "the weakest link" instead. Presumably, support for them will be dropped without much fanfare as soon as their market share goes below X %.
  - oatmealsnap 14y ago
    Fucking android, man. I would gladly include support for IE5.5 if I could drop Android 2.x.
- EGreg 14y ago
  Listen, I would be happy to just serve different versions of jQuery for different browsers. This is what's supposed to happen, and Google does it right.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

philh 14y ago

It looks to me like he's worried (or saying that other people are/might be worried) about how long 1.9 will continue to be supported for.

jhack 14y ago
From the post: "...we’ve got jQuery 1.x to handle older browsers and fully expect to support it for several more years."
- philh 14y ago
  I skimmed to see if they'd already addressed that, but apparently I missed it. Thanks.
- gcr 14y ago
  Exactly. What does "several" mean? Are we talking two years? Five? A decade? Until jQuery changes their minds?
  - Andrex 14y ago
    How relevant will IE8 be in just two years, though? If it's 3-5 which is what it sounds like, then that's just more of a nail in the coffin for IE8 support.
    - dspillett 14y ago
      > How relevant will IE8 be in just two years, though? That very much depends on your target audience. For home users IE8 is pretty much dead already, the only subset of people stuck there are the few who are using XP and have not switched to Firefox/Chrome/other. As more and more game-y things on the web start demanding newer features rather than creating/using/supporting fallback options for IE8 (canvas in particular). In more corporate environments, IE8 is often still king and will be for several years. Most of the clients for the product I spend most of the working day panel beating are large banks and most of them have only just migrated to IE8 from IE6 because they have to soon (IE6 falls out of extended support in less than 12 months, along with XP+sp3). If they follow the same pattern (and I see little reason why they won't, slow moving mammoths that they are) I and many others will have to be concerned about IE8 until at least 2018 as IE8 falls out of extended support in 2020 (as it's support windows are tied to Windows 7's). Hopefully jQuery's idea of "several years" is as least as long as this.
      - acdha 14y ago
        XP falls out of support next year: any bank using it would be going against very strong security guidance from Microsoft. Once you're on non-antique Windows, there's nothing preventing you from going all the way to IE10 which, again, starts getting into situations where not upgrading for security reasons starts approaching negligence.
        dspillett 14y ago
        > XP falls out of support next year But Vista and 7 do not, and you can can run IE8 on them just fine. IE8 itself is supported as long as Windows 7 is, which is Janurary 2020 for the extended support phase. > Once you're on non-antique Windows, there's nothing preventing you from going all the way to IE10 Nothing. Nothing at all. Unless you consider a large collection of legacy applications that either just plain don't work in anything other than legacy IE or simply haven't been tested (and signed-off as compatible and SLA-covered by the supplier) in anything else. They can't take the risk of not getting getting those apps thoroughly tested before upgrading and that will cost money (as will any changes, or complete replacemets, needed) and more importantly a huge amount of time (nothing moves quickly inside a bank no matter how hard enthustic and/or concerned people push - organisations of that size have trouble working up the inertia for significant internal changes). My suggestion has always been to install something else alongside IE and migrate that way: keeping IE around for those applications that require it (or have not been signed-off as working well on something else) but having something better for applications that don't rely on "classic" IE's excetricities. I get funny looks for that suggestion though - the thought of training users to cope with two programs where they once had one seems to trike TS people cold. > approaching negligence One of the key drivers working against building up change inertia is fear of neglidence (or accusations there-of). Large organisations have a significan aversion to risk, organisations within regulated industries (where you may do more than fail: you may fail and pick up a hefty fine and/or loss of license along the way) in particular, if they were people you'd probably call them neurotic on the matter. Change without sufficient plannig is a form of negligence, and fear of this is a large part of what adds friction to any forward movement.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    Whereas if they said explicitly "we will support it for 5 more years" how would have changed anything? They can change their minds at any time, and it's not like you can sue them or anything. Not to mention that the whole question is moot, for reasons I states on my comment above.
  - reeses 14y ago
    Excellent opportunity to start a company with a paid support model.
  - dmethvin 14y ago
    That last one. Given our past record on supporting things you shouldn't be too worried. But if you are, go to our GitHub project and click the Fork button.
    - vincentkriek 14y ago
      Although I am probably just being a stupid person, I really dislike this argument "If you don't like it, fix it yourself". While it might feel offensive that people are complaining left and right about the new version, it is actually a compliment. I am not trying to be a love-all hippie here, but people are complaining because they really fucking love the solution jQuery put out there to support multiple browsers. Don't feel offended, feel proud.
      - nathan_long 14y ago
        I wouldn't call it "if you don't like it, fix it yourself." I'd call it "you need code that does X? We don't have that, but we have something that does 99.9% of X, and you can have it for free!"
  - acdha 14y ago
    IE8 dropped under 10% for me last month. Several years seems fine to me.
    - talmand 14y ago
      Well then, be sure to let us know which browsers we should be worried over supporting with your analytics from a few years from now.
      - acdha 14y ago
        Try Akamai's global CDN stats showing similar numbers: http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset.html#stat=browser_ver&top=5&type=line&start=20130318&end=20130417&net=both http://www.akamai.com/html/io/io_dataset.html#stat=browser_v...
        talmand 14y ago
        Ok, what if my analytics disagree with their analytics? That was my point. Every website's needs will be slightly different than others. The point is that someone saying "I don't need to support browser X" doesn't mean that everyone else can stop supporting browser X.
- ajslater 14y ago
  "You can (and should) continue to use jQuery 1.9 (and the upcoming 1.10) on web sites that need to accommodate older browsers."
coldtea 14y ago
Well, it's an open source community project so the answer is obvious. 1.9 will be supported for as long as people care about to support it. Do those complaining want to somehow tell the developers what they should be working on? Where does the sense of entitlement come? Even if the whole core team insists on going 2.0 only at some point (high unlikely), it's not like it needs any highly technical skills for interested people to jump in and maintain 1.9. Most of the stuff has been stable for ages, and small fixes are easy to add if needed.
- EnderMB 14y ago
  > 1.9 will be supported for as long as people care about to support it. This is what worries me. You only need to spend an hour on HN or Reddit to see that web devs couldn't care less about legacy browsers, even when most businesses need to support them. I support the decision to fork jQuery, but I too am worried about whether the 1.x branch will continue to be supported, and also whether we'll see people releasing plugins that work well for both versions. It sounds like a 1.9 plugin will largely work on 2.0, and vice versa, but we'll have to see.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >This is what worries me. You only need to spend an hour on HN or Reddit to see that web devs couldn't care less about legacy browsers, even when most businesses need to support them. As I wrote, even if the whole core team insists on going 2.0 only at some point (high unlikely), it's not like it needs any highly technical skills for interested people to jump in and maintain 1.9. >I support the decision to fork jQuery, but I too am worried about whether the 1.x branch will continue to be supported, You worry too much. You can use 1.9. 1.8, 1.7, even 1.6 indefinitely. It's not like they would stop working on old browsers for some reason. I have websites that serve 2-3 jQuery versions behind, and they work just as well in any old and modern browser, including using several plugins (and a matching jQuery UI). So why do you even need to upgrade to 1.9 for the next 3-4 years? Not to mention they also said they'll release 1.10. Seriously, people, this is a non problem. Want to continue supporting IE6? 1) Trust the jQuery team and use 10.9, and eventually, 1.10. 2) Continue using 10.9, 10.8, 10.7 etc indefinitely. They still work on the latest browsers, and of course they will work forever on the older ones. 3) Go in 10.9 and fix any incompatibility you find with the latest browsers yourself. Or wait for someone of the multi-million strong web dev community to do it for you.

oneeyedpigeon 14y ago

Did you consider an alternative to major version bumping, e.g. a slightly different name for this fork, such as jQuery-slim ... or a much better name? :-) I think the problem is that 2.0 just implies 'better' to such an extent that a lot of people will be concerned about 1.9's imminent sunsetting.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
If you think about it it's like how Microsoft have handled MSIE. They've dropped support for older OS, ie XP and earlier, in IE9 but are still offering support/patches for IE8.
- yuhong 14y ago
  In fact, they actually support all the versions of IE supported on a given Windows version using the lifecycle of that Windows version. I personally have a MSRC case pending against IE7 on XP.

tambourine_man 14y ago

I do. The final 2.0.0 file is 12 percent smaller than the 1.9.1 file, thanks to the elimination of patches that were only needed for IE 6, 7, and 8. Dropping IE 6, 7 and 8 support for a 12% smaller file size while effectively forking your code base for the foreseeable future is a lousy decision. Increase complexity tremendously for what, 3-4 KB when gzipped?

reeses 14y ago
Actually, it's decreasing complexity and getting a happy side effect of a 12% smaller file. It was probably a mistake to add the file size difference as a benefit, as it has obviously confused a lot of people who appear to have perceived it as a primary design goal.
- tracker1 14y ago
  I'll say the size drop is the primary reason I'm going through having the browser tags for ie lt 9, vs other... even though 3-4K isn't much, that's quite a few packets on mobile (though there is Zepto, it's nowhere near complete enough for a lot of needs). I'm working on some revamped UI at the moment, and so far the script load (uglified, not gzipped) is around 250K, anything that can get that down imho is a good thing.
geon 14y ago
The article also says they hoped to remove more, but early android browsers became "the weakest link" instead. Presumably, support for them will be dropped without much fanfare as soon as their market share goes below X %.
- oatmealsnap 14y ago
  Fucking android, man. I would gladly include support for IE5.5 if I could drop Android 2.x.
EGreg 14y ago
Listen, I would be happy to just serve different versions of jQuery for different browsers. This is what's supposed to happen, and Google does it right.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]