Slashdot Mirror

Then can the browser vendors at least look at the fucked up work arounds they had to do to get jquery to even work and fix them?

The problem is that jQuery is so poorly implemented -- and so badly broken that there no value can be gained from its examination!

It's pretty obvious that Resig et al. don't have a clue. The "work arounds" are "fucked up" because they were written by rank amateurs who *still* don't know what they're doing!

As far consistency between browsers, I agree that things have improved. Even IE. So much so, in fact, that a few polyfills is often more than adequate to take care of the differences between browsers. (Just be careful with them. Some are great, while others are total garbage.)

Read the links I posted and dig around comp.lang.javascript for a little bit. If you're still advocating the use of jQuery after that, I don't know what to tell you!

My view on the matter is anyone who is criticizing Jquery / Dojo / and is suggesting vanilla javascript is completely ignoring the fact that the reason allot of these frameworks exists is the base implementations are horribly, horribly broken and the effects of a piece of javascript can be inconsistent even within the same browser.

But neither jQuery or Dojo actually solved the problem! (Sometimes they'd even make the problem worse...) The myth from years ago was that jQuery took care of all your cross-browser concerns. That was never even a little bit true. jQuery was, and still is, inconsistent across even the few browsers it claims to support. That's to say nothing of it's ever-shifting API!

Things are not nearly as broken as you seem to think they are. The differences between browsers can easily be managed by knowing what features to avoid -- and you don't need to avoid very much at all! Usually a small and simple polyfill or two will take care of any features you need -- even if you need to support antique versions of IE.

Looking forward, Adobe believes that Flash is particularly suited for addressing the gaming and premium video markets, and will focus its development efforts in those areas. At the same time, Adobe will make architectural and language changes to the runtimes in order to ensure that the Flash runtimes are well placed to enable the richest experiences on the web and across mobile devices for another decade.

what does that mean? it means flash is being used as middleware in game development. other examples of game middleware include the havok physics engine, sundog, RAD, autodesk, the list goes on. i've seen the flash logo in my console games already, in fact more and more as of late.

oh look! here's something from autodesk so you can use flash to make console-quality games for the web - http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/10/autodesk-scaleform-flash-games/. i really wish html5 had rich, mature development tools like flash does. how come autodesk didn't choose html5 for this instead of flash? actually, i know the answer.

adobe killed flash player in android mobile browsers because android is too fragmented to ensure quality. that's from their blog statement. html5 has the same problem, except that it's fragmented by all browsers, and not just mobile ones. if you don't think so, explain why modernizr exists: http://modernizr.com/.

one last thing to rip your stupid viewpoint apart: you hate flash most for the invasive ads? and you think that's flash's fault? you think adobe makes those ads? with html5 being supported to replace flash in the browser, marketers are going to make the same fucking ads that they make now, except they will be built in html5 and you will have a much tougher time blocking those than flash. you're a dumbass.

if you think flash means flash player in the browser only, then you don't know what flash is. you don't know shit.

Is there a good reason why these new Google toys don't work in Opera by default? Neither the background image option or that swirling ball trick from the other day worked in Opera until you set it in the options for Opera to mask itself as IE or Firefox - and now the same thing is true for this latest gimmick.

I don't know for sure (not a Google insider) but I would guess that they are using a wrapper script or something that has a hard coded list of support browser by browser. Whatever version of Opera you are using is probably incorrectly identified as not having these HTML5 feature(s) supported. Or perhaps it only gives you some of the functionality so they make the executive decision to just disable it entirely. I just finished reading HTML5 Up and Running by Mark Pilgrim of Google and he pushes heavily for the use of modernizr to check browser capabilities. I've never known Modernizr to be wrong though. Whatever the case, it appears Google is simply not promising their doodle will work in Opera ... could be that they made a checking script for the Pac-Man doodle and just kept carrying it over. Did Opera work for that?

Now that I think about it, this is a high traffic page so they probably wrote their own browser checking wrapper for graceful fallback instead of pushing all of a javascript library down to each client. They are probably using a broad brush to balance bandwidth with audience and you're one of the unfortunate victims.

You seem to be missing the point: The fact that UA spoofing works is generally proof of either laziness or malice. Laziness is certainly common enough(remember the good old days when large numbers of sites would shriek for IE; but render just fine if FF was set to IE's UA string?); but malice also occurs from time to time(The old Opera/MSN story, for instance).

In this case, the fact that Apple is just UA sniffing is shabby at best. Just checking for feature support isn't rocket surgery. Neither would be sending the least interesting summer intern to test the demos on a couple of other browsers that are likely to work and accepting those UAs as well. The fact that their "HTML5 demo" is just "transparent Safari propaganda" isn't illegal or anything; but talking up "web standards" and then hardcoding your demo to only work with your browser doesn't exactly scream "intellectual honesty"...

Web sites that want to support it and also support legacy browsers will use something like Modernizr or other HTML5 detection techniques and provide alternate content - like flash video as alternate content for HTML5 video, javascript or flash charts as alt content for canvas charts, etc.

Some features like sockets and web workers and local storage aren't really feasible for legacy browsers even with workarounds like Gears but a subset can be implemented for specific apps which is the focus of this topic....