dmitriid

64 ms·

541.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> This is not really true. This is 100% true. The latest example is WebTransport. Which isn't even on the standards track. Yet Chrome already released it, and calls it "an emergent standard". And this goes for multiple oth
542.
by dmitriid 4y ago
There are billions of Android devices, yet I don't see devs flocking to create these beautiful fully-featured PWAs they keep screaming about. (Cue in "but they are underpowered devices in poor countries")
543.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? Clearly no one on iOS is using the real FF now The market is much larger than just iOS. > I assume we'd even get some takers for Safari on Android And what do you imagine the share of
544.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Electron apps compete with native apps, what does this even have to do with browser engines? What do you think Electron apps are based on? > ??? You can't in all seriousness day that iPhone of the day is as limited as feature p
545.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> then market will decide what to do with them. Which market? There are no browser engines beyond Chrome, a very distant Safari, and a near-irrelevant Firefox > for a phone that has the limitations of a feature phone from 20 years ago
546.
by dmitriid 4y ago
For bugs don't see "open advocacy" site. Because a lot of it a poorly rebranded Chrome propaganda. For example, decrying lack of support for device/hardware APIs which are all Chrome-only non-standards that both Apple a
547.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> But if we drop this constraint and design widgets with their own consistent style within the same app Style is just one of many things. And it's extremely hard to properly code your own consistent UI toolkit. On top of that every
548.
by dmitriid 4y ago
On MacOS Safari has had this for quite sometime, but I think it taps into system-wide Spotlight
549.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> It is actually very easy to put things like a navigation and forms and such things on a website. That's about 1% of 1% of what people want to build. > Most websites do not need more than that. That we can agree on > If you f
550.
by dmitriid 4y ago
I think AoC isn't that far removed from code golfing, and a lot of people have custom languages for code golfing.
551.
by dmitriid 4y ago
You can "organize freely" until you need a highway that spans the entire continent. Or safe medicine. Or... What do you think governments are?
552.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> We can do so much with HTML 5 and CSS 3 already. The argument is to not use React or similar, when a simpler way using standard conform means is available. There are no simple ways to build UIs available in HTML5 and CSS3. It has neith
553.
by dmitriid 4y ago
Not necessarily. How old and how backward compatible are you thinking? - Symbol is 2014-2015 - Map is 2014-2015 - Weak* data structures and their methods span 2014-2021 - WebGL 2.0 is 2017-2021 - Custom Elements are 2017-2021 - Chrome-only
554.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> The standards are backwards compatible and evergreen. They are definitely not backwards compatible. Most of the modern web will be broken on older devices. A few of the newer standards couldn't even be properly polyfilled on some
555.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> For anything else (python, js, elixir) I use VSCode with a careful selection of plugins. I find JetBrains IDEs to be significantly better at Python and JS/TS (they do have dedicated IDEs for them after all). I wish Elixir support
556.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> worth $800B, with 200M users, transferring billions of dollars a day None of these statements are true. All of them (especially when it comes to monetary values) are wishful thinking.
557.
by dmitriid 4y ago
Tabler is quite decent: https://preview.tabler.io/
558.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> The blood is on Apple's hands here. Come on. This is bullshit, and you know it. The only reason industry at large is even supporting Google's codecs is because Google literally threatens hardware manufacturers to support thei
559.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> The format being dead in the water on the web without support from Apple/Safari, which was never forthcoming? Never stopped Google from pushing its own codecs. Often without even a stable version of the spec for years. And often t
560.
by dmitriid 4y ago
You've nailed it on the head. Hats off to you, I'd never come up with such an apt description.
561.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Browser vendors have other priorities besides having the latest-greatest compressor: code size If this was the case, Google wouldn't output 400 new web apis every year, and shove every feature under the sun into Chrome
562.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Ah yes, Google, a major contributor to JXL, is "clearly biased towards AVIF". Why is it surprising to you? Many major companies are contributors to a bunch of standards that they don't end up supporting. Meanwhile Google
563.
by dmitriid 4y ago
It's not the "very-very few". It's the combined population of several large countries. Because you're immediately excluding people on old devices, on underpowered devices, on devices on bad networks, on devices with
564.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Apple clearly wants to play the superiority game with their own codecs. They have zero incentive to support any codecs they didn't build, and have been known to abandon standards that they help develop. And on the other end you ha
565.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> In fact, it could be that the test was successful and now Chrome is waiting on something else before it adds proper support. I would argue this is likely the case. If Chrome deems that something is useful (to them, for some definition
566.
by dmitriid 4y ago
Yes they did. For an example, see any discussion on Chrome-only non-standards like hardware APIs where people are convinced they are standards and all other browsers are holding the web back. Their entire web.dev site is nothing but Chrome
567.
by dmitriid 4y ago
What a weird thing to say. Google dominates search, browsers, and mobile operating systems. CIA and NSA inly wished they had this (well, thanks to CLOUD Act they do, through Google and others). People not taking Google seriously is precisel
568.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> The fact every gamer now expects a tutorial level just demonstrates how much gamers today expect to be hand held. No, "every gamer" doesn't expect that. The industry pivoted to these (frankly infuriating) tutorials becau
569.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> I suppose Google gets a tiny bit of credit for not jamming MV3 through and leaving developers with the bill They will try again in a year, and there will be less opposition (because people get tired of fighting etc.), and this will hap
570.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> FB/Insta ads were a key catalyst of growth for thousands of startups and small brands in the 2010s. How many of those are genuine brands and startups and not a yet-another front for a multinational conglomerate (or marked up AliEx

More ›