4 ms·

Glow does support Firefox 3.5, Chrome 2, Opera 10 and Safari 4. We're certainly not going to ignore new versions of browsers until they appear on that list. At

Glow does support Firefox 3.5, Chrome 2, Opera 10 and Safari 4. We're certainly not going to ignore new versions of browsers until they appear on that list. At some points, we've been ahead of jQuery when it comes to new browsers. Basically because we were able to quickly patch and release in order to fix high-profile BBC pages. This isn't a criticism of jQuery, but it shows the benefit of us being devoted to the BBC. The BBC will always have to support older browsers because of our users. I think it would be unfair to ask other libraries to hang back with us (I'd much rather they advanced actually), and I wouldn't want to be using a library that left us behind. At the moment, our support table is actually closer to other libraries' than it has ever been, that support gap will naturally increase and decrease over time. We're not trying to steal your thunder at all, although I can see why it may have came across like that. My advice to developers is: use the library which has the most features you require. Whichever you pick, request the features that are missing. With all the libraries innovating and others taking note, the quality of all libraries increases. Having one library to rule them all doesn't drive things forward, a good example of this is when IE6 was the only major browser, browser development stagnated. We're not about filling a void in the market, but filling a void at the BBC. We're open sourcing our efforts because we should. You mention you communicated with us? I'm not aware of this at all. Having said all this, we're looking at the possibility of using Sizzle in Glow 2.0, although it's a bit vague about which browsers it intends to support. Would be great to know the details! http://groups.google.com/group/sizzlejs/browse_thread/thread/196a7b28aa1acb3a/e9f510f74c995cbc?lnk=gst&q=browser+support#e9f510f74c995cbc http://groups.google.com/group/sizzlejs/browse_thread/thread... Cheers, Jake.

jeresig 17y ago
Thanks for your feedback, Jake - and your note on the improved browser support, that's good to know. I stand corrected. > Having one library to rule them all doesn't drive things forward, a good example of this is when IE6 was the only major browser, browser development stagnated. I think that's a poor analogy. Everything stagnated because no one could improve upon IE 6 - it was a proprietary browser which had no way to add in new functionality. This is very different from an Open Source project run by a community of people and companies interested in seeing it improve and strive. > You mention you communicated with us? I'm not aware of this at all. I had talked with a member of the team at some post-@Media event (I think it was @Media Ajax, maybe @Media proper). Maybe I'm mis-remembering who exactly but I've definitely chatted with a few people at the BBC about jQuery and Glow. > Sizzle in Glow 2.0, although it's a bit vague about which browsers it intends to support. Would be great to know the details! What I mentioned in the post still stands: It supports at least as many browsers as jQuery does. I'm absolutely open to accepting patches to fix any deficiencies in older browsers (same goes for jQuery as well!). I'd love to see Glow utilize Sizzle, definitely contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
manonthemoon 17y ago
I'm less concerned about jQuery's thunder and more concerned about the BBC's use of public money to fund developers' vanity projects. How is the time and cost which of building and maintaining Glow outweighed by the level of page degradation that Safari 1.3 and other tiny niche users would have experienced (where it could not be mitigated by other page design considerations) using, for example, jQuery?
- frazor 17y ago
  Due to the BBC's public service remit it has to support a very wide range of use cases - many of which fall outside of the accepted norm. For example the BBC has to provide its contents to libraries and schools, many of which have more heavily 'locked down' machines than your typical corporate network, and who do not have the money or time to upgrade their machines. There are a lot of smaller user groups in situations that prevent them from upgrading too. You'd be surprised how many older machine users this equates to. Thus the BBC has to support the thin end of the wedge of web browsers, and the stats we have (unfortunately) back this up. The Glow team itself is actually a very small team, even in BBC terms (which usually has small teams compared to a lot of companies). Add to this the in-house support they give to all of the other web products in terms of a library and general JS support and you have in effect a net gain in web producing ability - not a loss, so its more effective to do this and thus a more efficient use of BBC funds.
- jaffathecake 17y ago
  It's common for people to see something they don't think directly benefits them and decide it's a waste of the licence fee. Perhaps you're not tied down to older browsers, so Glow has no benefit compared to other libraries, for you personally. I'm a fan of the Radio 4 programme "More or Less", a review of stats in news stories. It's audience would seem insignificant compared to reality TV shows and soap operas, should the BBC scrap "More or Less" and reassign its budget to reality TV? Would you say it's wrong that we support screen reader users, even though their numbers are small? Is time spent helping these users a waste of their licence fee? No, we're happy to cater for minority users even if it means being behind other libraries. I wouldn't want other libraries to do the same, as they can be the choice for people who don't need the support of old browsers, and they can perhaps be faster and leaner for it.
seasoup 17y ago
It seems like Glow is YAJSL (Yet Another Javascript Library). After looking through the documentation, it doesn't seem to provide anything that jQuery, Prototype, Dojo, Extjs or Mootools doesn't already provide. Selectors, DOM Manipulation, Events, Ajax, UI Widgets. At least it looks like it doesn't extend js primitives or DOM elements like Prototype and Mootools. It's sad that the BBC is continuing along this path despite the original reason for it... browser support... being a moot issue at this point. The JS world would be better off if they abandoned their support of their internal library and instead focused on using, supporting, and extending one of the existing open-source libraries. jQuery is so open to user development and its plugin architecture lends itself nicely to the BBC team being able to add any functionality they feel is missing. I hope they at least consider dropping Glow and taking up jQuery instead.
- codepants 17y ago
  As I read it, the point is less about providing more functionality than any existing library and more about tailoring the features that Glow does support to match the very specific requirements of the BBC. (If you happen to think some other library is a better match for your needs then I'm sure the folks at the BBC would urge you use it.) But what would happen if the BBC tied all its web apps to one of those third-party libraries and then that library suddenly announced they were dropping support for some minor browser or screen reader the BBC were mandated to deliver to? They'd end up having to maintain some parallel version modified to match their own particular needs. I hardly see how making the work they've done open source and free for everyone to use they're hurting "the JS world."
  - pbhj 17y ago
    "if the BBC tied all its web apps to one of those third-party libraries and then that library suddenly announced they were dropping support for some minor browser or screen reader the BBC were mandated to deliver to?" Do you really think that picking up support for an EOL browser would be more time/effort/expense than developing an entirely separate javascript framework? Even given that others using the framework would also be interested in maintaining support?
paulmorriss 17y ago
You say we should use the library with the most features. What I want to do is pick a library for our organisation to use for the forseeable future. I can't forsee what features I will require in the future. I'm currently using JQuery because that's the one I hear most about. Whilst it's very kind of you to give your stuff away, I think it makes life harder for those of us having to choose which Yet Another Javascript Library to use.

jeresig 17y ago

Thanks for your feedback, Jake - and your note on the improved browser support, that's good to know. I stand corrected. > Having one library to rule them all doesn't drive things forward, a good example of this is when IE6 was the only major browser, browser development stagnated. I think that's a poor analogy. Everything stagnated because no one could improve upon IE 6 - it was a proprietary browser which had no way to add in new functionality. This is very different from an Open Source project run by a community of people and companies interested in seeing it improve and strive. > You mention you communicated with us? I'm not aware of this at all. I had talked with a member of the team at some post-@Media event (I think it was @Media Ajax, maybe @Media proper). Maybe I'm mis-remembering who exactly but I've definitely chatted with a few people at the BBC about jQuery and Glow. > Sizzle in Glow 2.0, although it's a bit vague about which browsers it intends to support. Would be great to know the details! What I mentioned in the post still stands: It supports at least as many browsers as jQuery does. I'm absolutely open to accepting patches to fix any deficiencies in older browsers (same goes for jQuery as well!). I'd love to see Glow utilize Sizzle, definitely contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

manonthemoon 17y ago

I'm less concerned about jQuery's thunder and more concerned about the BBC's use of public money to fund developers' vanity projects. How is the time and cost which of building and maintaining Glow outweighed by the level of page degradation that Safari 1.3 and other tiny niche users would have experienced (where it could not be mitigated by other page design considerations) using, for example, jQuery?

frazor 17y ago
Due to the BBC's public service remit it has to support a very wide range of use cases - many of which fall outside of the accepted norm. For example the BBC has to provide its contents to libraries and schools, many of which have more heavily 'locked down' machines than your typical corporate network, and who do not have the money or time to upgrade their machines. There are a lot of smaller user groups in situations that prevent them from upgrading too. You'd be surprised how many older machine users this equates to. Thus the BBC has to support the thin end of the wedge of web browsers, and the stats we have (unfortunately) back this up. The Glow team itself is actually a very small team, even in BBC terms (which usually has small teams compared to a lot of companies). Add to this the in-house support they give to all of the other web products in terms of a library and general JS support and you have in effect a net gain in web producing ability - not a loss, so its more effective to do this and thus a more efficient use of BBC funds.
jaffathecake 17y ago
It's common for people to see something they don't think directly benefits them and decide it's a waste of the licence fee. Perhaps you're not tied down to older browsers, so Glow has no benefit compared to other libraries, for you personally. I'm a fan of the Radio 4 programme "More or Less", a review of stats in news stories. It's audience would seem insignificant compared to reality TV shows and soap operas, should the BBC scrap "More or Less" and reassign its budget to reality TV? Would you say it's wrong that we support screen reader users, even though their numbers are small? Is time spent helping these users a waste of their licence fee? No, we're happy to cater for minority users even if it means being behind other libraries. I wouldn't want other libraries to do the same, as they can be the choice for people who don't need the support of old browsers, and they can perhaps be faster and leaner for it.

seasoup 17y ago

It seems like Glow is YAJSL (Yet Another Javascript Library). After looking through the documentation, it doesn't seem to provide anything that jQuery, Prototype, Dojo, Extjs or Mootools doesn't already provide. Selectors, DOM Manipulation, Events, Ajax, UI Widgets. At least it looks like it doesn't extend js primitives or DOM elements like Prototype and Mootools. It's sad that the BBC is continuing along this path despite the original reason for it... browser support... being a moot issue at this point. The JS world would be better off if they abandoned their support of their internal library and instead focused on using, supporting, and extending one of the existing open-source libraries. jQuery is so open to user development and its plugin architecture lends itself nicely to the BBC team being able to add any functionality they feel is missing. I hope they at least consider dropping Glow and taking up jQuery instead.

codepants 17y ago
As I read it, the point is less about providing more functionality than any existing library and more about tailoring the features that Glow does support to match the very specific requirements of the BBC. (If you happen to think some other library is a better match for your needs then I'm sure the folks at the BBC would urge you use it.) But what would happen if the BBC tied all its web apps to one of those third-party libraries and then that library suddenly announced they were dropping support for some minor browser or screen reader the BBC were mandated to deliver to? They'd end up having to maintain some parallel version modified to match their own particular needs. I hardly see how making the work they've done open source and free for everyone to use they're hurting "the JS world."
- pbhj 17y ago
  "if the BBC tied all its web apps to one of those third-party libraries and then that library suddenly announced they were dropping support for some minor browser or screen reader the BBC were mandated to deliver to?" Do you really think that picking up support for an EOL browser would be more time/effort/expense than developing an entirely separate javascript framework? Even given that others using the framework would also be interested in maintaining support?

paulmorriss 17y ago

You say we should use the library with the most features. What I want to do is pick a library for our organisation to use for the forseeable future. I can't forsee what features I will require in the future. I'm currently using JQuery because that's the one I hear most about. Whilst it's very kind of you to give your stuff away, I think it makes life harder for those of us having to choose which Yet Another Javascript Library to use.