This library, on the other hand, is several orders of magnitude more useful (and I'm dead serious about it): http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/
I have tried this library recently (IE9.js specifically). It worked as advertised in many situations. However I also ran into a case where it broke a layout in IE6 that was previously working ok. It's a great library, but not a drop-in solution for all the IE5/6 problems it claims to fix. Like many IE hacks, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Re:Why does C# have redundant syntax?
on
How C# Was Made
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Personally, I like the 'new' keyword. It makes it very clear where an object is being instantiated, and not just assigned through a function (that's what var = Type(args) looks like to me).
Also, C# allows the core types to be allocated on the stack. Here is a line I pulled from my code:
byte* buffer = stackalloc byte[256];
stackalloc can only be used inside an unsafe context.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never heard of a "windows fanboy"
This library, on the other hand, is several orders of magnitude more useful (and I'm dead serious about it): http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/
I have tried this library recently (IE9.js specifically). It worked as advertised in many situations. However I also ran into a case where it broke a layout in IE6 that was previously working ok. It's a great library, but not a drop-in solution for all the IE5/6 problems it claims to fix. Like many IE hacks, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Personally, I like the 'new' keyword. It makes it very clear where an object is being instantiated, and not just assigned through a function (that's what var = Type(args) looks like to me).
Also, C# allows the core types to be allocated on the stack. Here is a line I pulled from my code:
byte* buffer = stackalloc byte[256];
stackalloc can only be used inside an unsafe context.