3 ms·

I don't understand why people say such silly feats of pseudo-"engineering" are somehow "OK" and acceptable. How have we arrived to this situation? I get that 1

by zxcdw 13y ago

I don't understand why people say such silly feats of pseudo-"engineering" are somehow "OK" and acceptable. How have we arrived to this situation? I get that 1) agreeing upon a more sane bytecode-based language for the web 2) implementing it on all major browsers 3) changing the tooling and workflow(no more a .js file, save and open in browser but a compiled file instead) would perhaps be not worth the benefit(more sane target, better support for common programming constructs without performance, safety or determinism issues and so on). Simply, people don't give a fuck, web works "well enough" and iterative engineering solves the major problems. These just are things we have to deal with, something we can't change, which I find pitiful but understandable, but most definitely not "OK" or acceptable.

pornel 13y ago
> I don't understand why people say such silly feats of pseudo-"engineering" are somehow "OK" and acceptable. Network effect and worse is better. Any solution that cannot be introduced gradually with backwards- and forwards-compatibility is very unlikely to gain traction on the web. You'll always get a vendor that doesn't like some tech or has multi-year-long development/distribution/upgrade process. Tools can be even slower to upgrade and you'll also need to educate developers and get them out of their comfort zones. It's not that people don't give a fuck. It's not pseudo-"engineering". It's the best you can get within constrains that are both technical and social.