Hey, buddy, it does make total sense. Different JavaScript engines makes a big difference, the fact that Safari runs like molten hot shit (which is not very fast) outside of OSX is another big difference. But no, you're right the rendering engine is totally the only part of a browser that matters, as its the one thing that there is a standard for. The stuff that different developers are free to implement as they see fit can't possibly have any impact on the usability or performance. All the differences are in the standardized portion of the browser.
Yeah, the only different between J++ and J# is the plus signs overlap in J#.
Actually I believe J# is supposedly able to compile java compliant code but also extended it and was to serve as a migration to J++. J# then would be exactly a Java killer intended to poach Java devs and then introduce them to non-java features so they won't go back.
Yes, what would be great is if fossil fuels were really expensive and we actually had an energy crisis. We won't get efficient panels until all the factories are shut down.
If I were you I would update my skills a little. The HTML/CSS I've seen for cross browser sites usually ends up being just a little different CSS for some specific stylings. Just crap a little bit of in there, use the ie6.css to adjust the styling for IE 6 and you're done. Bingo bango. Sure its a little more work, but 50%? Come on.
Hey man, that's mean. My mind is infinite. I thought you were talking present day though, and those kinds of "rewrite the page just for IE" complaints are outdated. No offense intended, slugger. Without sarcasm I can probably say you're better at writing HTML and CSS than I am, but then again I'm one of those bad web developers I was talking about. When my designer friends show me there work I'm always shit my pants with how readable and simple their HTML/CSS is. I don't know how they do it.
I know they have the same underlying engine, but here's my problem with Safari: It runs so slowly when not on OSX. So my non-OSX bias is in fact showing. To be honest, the only reason its at the bottom is because Chrome will render almost 100% identical to each other every time and Chrome is so much lighter on resource consumption. It makes Safari kind of useless.
He said he had to redo the pages. I'm not misdirecting my attack. If I had a designer who had a layout that worked great in Chrome and Firefox then they had to scrap it and redo the whole thing for IE I would kick them in the jimmy. Being a good [any profession] isn't about doing everything by the book, its about knowing the pitfalls, seeing them coming, and working around them. Knowing all the quirks of all the browsers is part of the job. The subject is for them to implement 3 and 4 correctly. Largely they have, or are at least as close as some of the othe browsers that get almost no heat for when they break the standard. Where they haven't, others have worked around. If you're rewriting pages because you can't get them to work in IE then you probably fucked up.
That wasn't an attack! An attack would have been something like "You're an idiot, there is no way to do [obscure feature] in IE but its not documented anywhere!" This was more of a perry. Obviously IE6 had a ton of problems that were huge time wasters, so I understand still being angry. However people that complain about needing to support IE now really don't have much of a reason to complain anymore. Yeah, its still different but its getting close, and most people know it is different and provide handy ways to get around its limitations. The "IE is killing the internet" days are pretty much coming to an end.
Also it sucks. If you want a real browser use Chrome. Firefox is god awful. The ranking of browsers should be Chrome first, then Firefox, then IE8+, all other browsers, then Safari.
I suspect thats mostly because you're bad at web development. Honestly, in this day and age if you have issues with IE that can't be fixed with a quick little work around for the feature you're using, you're doing it wrong. I won't say its compliant, but there are billions of nice solutions out there now for getting IE to work. In no way is this a defense of Microsoft, its just an attack on you.
Oh, ok I get it. So you go to the site, then enable the flash to see the content, then if it's malicious it didn't get you! Come on, don't be stupid, for most people that doesn't matter. The OP was a little bit retarded in his assertion there is no reason to let it run by default. I see his point to, I'm just mocking him for being a dickwad about it. Sure it can be annoying, but the security end of the flash argument is pretty weak. By the time you know it was malicious you already ran it. Don't go to malicious looking sites period. If it doesn't look malicious, there's no reason not to enable the flash when you get there.
Well some people like to be in control of their computers and not have it ask for stupid things. Like, I wouldn't want the browser to ask me or wait for me to tell it to display images, or run javascript, or.... whatever. I went to the page damnit! That was authorization enough for me. Why would I install flash, go to a page, and not have it run the flash *by bloody default*?
No, I'm not. I just don't think an action independent of determination a companies total tax liability (or certainly not enough to offset 100% of the investment) counts as us paying for it simply because we didn't tax them so much they couldn't or wouldn't perform the action. Use your logic skills man.
Then the government is paying for everything we all do. Hey everybody, you've been buying me government subsidized weed for years by virtue of not taxing me 100%.
Wow buddy, you seem pissed off. Let me calm you down by saying nobody gives a shit about your attitude or wild anti-microsoft assertions. The bottom line is Microsoft could piss diamonds all over your bedroom and shit poop all over your enemies and you would still find something to bitch about.
Microsoft doesn't develop on my schedule and hackers have already put out SDKs. I don't know why their commercial offering would take a while, its almost as if corporations don't move as fast as small teams! I don't understaaaaand! Why would anybody care about the manufacturer of a device supporting something we all want? I'm going to complain about it! That's you, and you sound pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, buddy, it does make total sense. Different JavaScript engines makes a big difference, the fact that Safari runs like molten hot shit (which is not very fast) outside of OSX is another big difference. But no, you're right the rendering engine is totally the only part of a browser that matters, as its the one thing that there is a standard for. The stuff that different developers are free to implement as they see fit can't possibly have any impact on the usability or performance. All the differences are in the standardized portion of the browser.
Scratch that, you're right. I'm wrong.
Yeah, the only different between J++ and J# is the plus signs overlap in J#.
Actually I believe J# is supposedly able to compile java compliant code but also extended it and was to serve as a migration to J++. J# then would be exactly a Java killer intended to poach Java devs and then introduce them to non-java features so they won't go back.
How about this: Chrome first, then all the other browsers.
Yes, what would be great is if fossil fuels were really expensive and we actually had an energy crisis. We won't get efficient panels until all the factories are shut down.
If I were you I would update my skills a little. The HTML/CSS I've seen for cross browser sites usually ends up being just a little different CSS for some specific stylings. Just crap a little bit of in there, use the ie6.css to adjust the styling for IE 6 and you're done. Bingo bango. Sure its a little more work, but 50%? Come on.
Hey man, that's mean. My mind is infinite. I thought you were talking present day though, and those kinds of "rewrite the page just for IE" complaints are outdated. No offense intended, slugger. Without sarcasm I can probably say you're better at writing HTML and CSS than I am, but then again I'm one of those bad web developers I was talking about. When my designer friends show me there work I'm always shit my pants with how readable and simple their HTML/CSS is. I don't know how they do it.
I know they have the same underlying engine, but here's my problem with Safari: It runs so slowly when not on OSX. So my non-OSX bias is in fact showing. To be honest, the only reason its at the bottom is because Chrome will render almost 100% identical to each other every time and Chrome is so much lighter on resource consumption. It makes Safari kind of useless.
He said he had to redo the pages. I'm not misdirecting my attack. If I had a designer who had a layout that worked great in Chrome and Firefox then they had to scrap it and redo the whole thing for IE I would kick them in the jimmy. Being a good [any profession] isn't about doing everything by the book, its about knowing the pitfalls, seeing them coming, and working around them. Knowing all the quirks of all the browsers is part of the job. The subject is for them to implement 3 and 4 correctly. Largely they have, or are at least as close as some of the othe browsers that get almost no heat for when they break the standard. Where they haven't, others have worked around. If you're rewriting pages because you can't get them to work in IE then you probably fucked up.
Counter attack.
In response smelch said:
That wasn't an attack!
That wasn't an attack! An attack would have been something like "You're an idiot, there is no way to do [obscure feature] in IE but its not documented anywhere!" This was more of a perry. Obviously IE6 had a ton of problems that were huge time wasters, so I understand still being angry. However people that complain about needing to support IE now really don't have much of a reason to complain anymore. Yeah, its still different but its getting close, and most people know it is different and provide handy ways to get around its limitations. The "IE is killing the internet" days are pretty much coming to an end.
Also it sucks. If you want a real browser use Chrome. Firefox is god awful. The ranking of browsers should be Chrome first, then Firefox, then IE8+, all other browsers, then Safari.
No, it was called J#.
Didn't they just give up finishing it entirely? HTML5 and 4G have pretty much been defined as "more better than the last version".
I suspect thats mostly because you're bad at web development. Honestly, in this day and age if you have issues with IE that can't be fixed with a quick little work around for the feature you're using, you're doing it wrong. I won't say its compliant, but there are billions of nice solutions out there now for getting IE to work. In no way is this a defense of Microsoft, its just an attack on you.
Oh, ok I get it. So you go to the site, then enable the flash to see the content, then if it's malicious it didn't get you! Come on, don't be stupid, for most people that doesn't matter. The OP was a little bit retarded in his assertion there is no reason to let it run by default. I see his point to, I'm just mocking him for being a dickwad about it. Sure it can be annoying, but the security end of the flash argument is pretty weak. By the time you know it was malicious you already ran it. Don't go to malicious looking sites period. If it doesn't look malicious, there's no reason not to enable the flash when you get there.
Well some people like to be in control of their computers and not have it ask for stupid things. Like, I wouldn't want the browser to ask me or wait for me to tell it to display images, or run javascript, or.... whatever. I went to the page damnit! That was authorization enough for me. Why would I install flash, go to a page, and not have it run the flash *by bloody default*?
And a glossary.
Yes, because key loggers go in the hardware. No physical keyboard, where will you put the keylogger? Genius.
Every episode of the Fresh Prince was special.
Every sitcom in the 90s had that episode where somebody took some pills to study/stay awake/get more done and ended up with terrible consequences.
No, I'm not. I just don't think an action independent of determination a companies total tax liability (or certainly not enough to offset 100% of the investment) counts as us paying for it simply because we didn't tax them so much they couldn't or wouldn't perform the action. Use your logic skills man.
Then the government is paying for everything we all do. Hey everybody, you've been buying me government subsidized weed for years by virtue of not taxing me 100%.
Poopknuckle... you win.
Wow buddy, you seem pissed off. Let me calm you down by saying nobody gives a shit about your attitude or wild anti-microsoft assertions. The bottom line is Microsoft could piss diamonds all over your bedroom and shit poop all over your enemies and you would still find something to bitch about.
Microsoft doesn't develop on my schedule and hackers have already put out SDKs. I don't know why their commercial offering would take a while, its almost as if corporations don't move as fast as small teams! I don't understaaaaand! Why would anybody care about the manufacturer of a device supporting something we all want? I'm going to complain about it! That's you, and you sound pathetic.