4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- EnderMB 14y ago
  Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, and I don't think it's really a problem. Hell, if it is it's not a problem to use both libraries, and to serve 1.x to those using older browsers. It's just a shift in the core mentality of what people view jQuery as. Many of us use jQuery because it works, regardless of what browser a user is on. For a lot of others, jQuery IS JavaScript. If they want to do something on their site, they look for a jQuery plugin and use that, otherwise in their mind it'll be too much work to get it done. It's depressing, but it's the reality of development. One point you raise that I do disagree with is: > 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. This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Fixing new functionality is not an attractive problem, and out of the multi-million strong community I can see very few people with both the skills, the time, or the desire to fix these problems, and those that could fix the problems are more likely to wait for someone else to do it. I'd consider myself fairly handy with JavaScript, but I'm also a very busy man, and my office won't want me spending company time fixing a bug in a plugin if there is another way. Also, there isn't a developer alive that likes fixing legacy bugs. I can think of a million things I'd rather do than fix IE6-7 bugs.
  - Robin_Message 14y ago
    > This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Since open source is free and open, it really can't fuck you †. You can however screw yourself by relying on it to do your work for you. As you say, few people have the skills, time and desire to fix these sorts of problems, and that means you can't rely on open source to fix them for you. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this called "money" which companies have and which can be given to a developer with the skills who will magically convert that money into the time and desire to fix the problem. † If your company is willing to use open source, but only when it is perfect, and not willing to help improve it, maybe they are the doing the fucking?
    - talmand 14y ago
      I like how you denied the "fuck you with a smile" response with the very "fuck you with a smile" response he was complaining about.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - jmathai 14y ago
        The point is that if you're a company that's relying on an open source project and not contributing back to it then you have no basis to be "fucked" by the project.
        talmand 14y ago
        Well, I believe the person in question wasn't saying that the project itself was saying "fuck you", but the people answering the response were saying it. The point being that there are too many people that say if you don't contribute then shut the fuck up. But, of course, different people contribute in different ways. Not everyone who uses open source software are developers, and for many of these people the simple fact they use the software is their way of contributing. So when one of these people stand up and say, "I have this problem", the appropriate response is not "contribute or shut the fuck up". This is the response that is being encouraged here. It is irrelevant if the statement about a problem came from an individual or a company. The reason that such a response is a bad idea is that it actively encourages people to not use the software in question. If the goal is to get everyone to stop using open source software, then by all means continue to tell them to fuck off.

by EnderMB 14y ago

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.

EnderMB 14y ago
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, and I don't think it's really a problem. Hell, if it is it's not a problem to use both libraries, and to serve 1.x to those using older browsers. It's just a shift in the core mentality of what people view jQuery as. Many of us use jQuery because it works, regardless of what browser a user is on. For a lot of others, jQuery IS JavaScript. If they want to do something on their site, they look for a jQuery plugin and use that, otherwise in their mind it'll be too much work to get it done. It's depressing, but it's the reality of development. One point you raise that I do disagree with is: > 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. This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Fixing new functionality is not an attractive problem, and out of the multi-million strong community I can see very few people with both the skills, the time, or the desire to fix these problems, and those that could fix the problems are more likely to wait for someone else to do it. I'd consider myself fairly handy with JavaScript, but I'm also a very busy man, and my office won't want me spending company time fixing a bug in a plugin if there is another way. Also, there isn't a developer alive that likes fixing legacy bugs. I can think of a million things I'd rather do than fix IE6-7 bugs.
- Robin_Message 14y ago
  > This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Since open source is free and open, it really can't fuck you †. You can however screw yourself by relying on it to do your work for you. As you say, few people have the skills, time and desire to fix these sorts of problems, and that means you can't rely on open source to fix them for you. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this called "money" which companies have and which can be given to a developer with the skills who will magically convert that money into the time and desire to fix the problem. † If your company is willing to use open source, but only when it is perfect, and not willing to help improve it, maybe they are the doing the fucking?
  - talmand 14y ago
    I like how you denied the "fuck you with a smile" response with the very "fuck you with a smile" response he was complaining about.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jmathai 14y ago
      The point is that if you're a company that's relying on an open source project and not contributing back to it then you have no basis to be "fucked" by the project.
      - talmand 14y ago
        Well, I believe the person in question wasn't saying that the project itself was saying "fuck you", but the people answering the response were saying it. The point being that there are too many people that say if you don't contribute then shut the fuck up. But, of course, different people contribute in different ways. Not everyone who uses open source software are developers, and for many of these people the simple fact they use the software is their way of contributing. So when one of these people stand up and say, "I have this problem", the appropriate response is not "contribute or shut the fuck up". This is the response that is being encouraged here. It is irrelevant if the statement about a problem came from an individual or a company. The reason that such a response is a bad idea is that it actively encourages people to not use the software in question. If the goal is to get everyone to stop using open source software, then by all means continue to tell them to fuck off.