IE9--the end of the line for browser sniffers?
in [JavaScript]
|
From: RobG on 31 May 2010 23:07 On May 29, 3:36 am, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On 5/27/2010 7:13 PM, RobG wrote: > > > On May 27, 9:24 am, "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > >> All I'm saying is, based on ~15 minutes of observation, the jQuery > >> apocalypse you continue to rant about appears very unlikely to arrive > >> with IE9. > > ... > > > <URL:http://forum.jquery.com/topic/verison-compatibility-issue> > > > It was posted 2 days ago on the new forum and not a single response. > > None. > > Not sure what any of that has to do with IE9. No doubt it will cause the release of a new version of jQuery to deal with its quirks once discovered. If jQuery users need to support IE 9 they will be pressured to upgrade to "support" the new version. The link's relevance is that it shows that upgrading is not a trivial task - firstly as the OP can't work it out and secondly because no one seems to be able to help with even general information. > Also not sure what responses you expected that poster to receive. Not > many psychics active in that forum. I would have expected a helpful response, either addressing the question or asking for more information. The question was pretty simple: | "I realize there could be problems with some of the | other javascript, but I was wondering if someone could | point me in the right direction with regard to any | possible jquery issues [upgrading from version 1.2.6]." That should be a common enough task that someone could provide general pointers, or even be an FAQ entry. If the requirement is really that hard to understand, the regulars of that forum could have asked for more information. -- Rob
From: S.T. on 1 Jun 2010 14:50 On 5/31/2010 8:07 PM, RobG wrote: > On May 29, 3:36 am, "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> wrote: >> On 5/27/2010 7:13 PM, RobG wrote: >> >>> On May 27, 9:24 am, "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> wrote: >>>> All I'm saying is, based on ~15 minutes of observation, the jQuery >>>> apocalypse you continue to rant about appears very unlikely to arrive >>>> with IE9. >> >> ... >> >>> <URL:http://forum.jquery.com/topic/verison-compatibility-issue> >> >>> It was posted 2 days ago on the new forum and not a single response. >>> None. >> >> Not sure what any of that has to do with IE9. > > No doubt it will cause the release of a new version of jQuery to deal > with its quirks once discovered. If jQuery users need to support IE 9 > they will be pressured to upgrade to "support" the new version. > > The link's relevance is that it shows that upgrading is not a trivial > task - firstly as the OP can't work it out and secondly because no one > seems to be able to help with even general information. Upgrading is trivial. Granted, I have a modest knowledge of JS and pretty thorough understanding of the library's API so that helps. If someone just copied/pasted a tutorial, saw that it worked and therefore never bothered to learn the jQuery API or basic JS... well... they're probably gonna struggle to upgrade. However that seems like the user's fault, not the library. jQuery's a crutch, not a cure-all. Still have to learn how to debug a script. >> Also not sure what responses you expected that poster to receive. Not >> many psychics active in that forum. > > I would have expected a helpful response, either addressing the > question or asking for more information. The question was pretty > simple: > > | "I realize there could be problems with some of the > | other javascript, but I was wondering if someone could > | point me in the right direction with regard to any > | possible jquery issues [upgrading from version 1.2.6]." > > That should be a common enough task that someone could provide general > pointers, or even be an FAQ entry. If the requirement is really that > hard to understand, the regulars of that forum could have asked for > more information. The sample code that poster provided linked to three unknown scripts, included a couple unreferenced functions, provided no URL. I suppose someone could have pointed him/her to: http://docs.jquery.com/Release:jQuery_1.3#Upgrading .... but I'm not surprised no one bothered. I can only imagine the reception that poster would have received here with that caliber of question.
From: David Mark on 1 Jun 2010 15:22
On Jun 1, 2:50 pm, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On 5/31/2010 8:07 PM, RobG wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 3:36 am, "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > >> On 5/27/2010 7:13 PM, RobG wrote: > > >>> On May 27, 9:24 am, "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > >>>> All I'm saying is, based on ~15 minutes of observation, the jQuery > >>>> apocalypse you continue to rant about appears very unlikely to arrive > >>>> with IE9. > > >> ... > > >>> <URL:http://forum.jquery.com/topic/verison-compatibility-issue> > > >>> It was posted 2 days ago on the new forum and not a single response. > >>> None. > > >> Not sure what any of that has to do with IE9. > > > No doubt it will cause the release of a new version of jQuery to deal > > with its quirks once discovered. If jQuery users need to support IE 9 > > they will be pressured to upgrade to "support" the new version. > > > The link's relevance is that it shows that upgrading is not a trivial > > task - firstly as the OP can't work it out and secondly because no one > > seems to be able to help with even general information. > > Upgrading is trivial. Even the staunchest of jQuery proponents would disagree with that characterization, particularly if any add-ons are involved. And it is infinitely more involved than not having to upgrade a complicated and ever-shifting black box. A strategy that plans to upgrade every few months is not going to save time and money in the long run. QA testing of Web apps is involved and expensive. > Granted, I have a modest knowledge of JS and > pretty thorough understanding of the library's API so that helps. How would that help? You can't patch jQuery yourself, unless you wish to eschew future upgrades. > > If someone just copied/pasted a tutorial, saw that it worked and > therefore never bothered to learn the jQuery API or basic JS... well... > they're probably gonna struggle to upgrade. There's just no correlation there. They change things at random and often break compatibility without even knowing it. How will your knowledge of a single instance of the jQuery API and/or basic JS help? > However that seems like the > user's fault, not the library. It might seem that way, but the argument is fatally flawed. > > jQuery's a crutch, not a cure-all. Still have to learn how to debug a > script. And do you think it would be easier to debug your scripts or jQuery? > > > > >> Also not sure what responses you expected that poster to receive. Not > >> many psychics active in that forum. > > > I would have expected a helpful response, either addressing the > > question or asking for more information. The question was pretty > > simple: > > > | "I realize there could be problems with some of the > > | other javascript, but I was wondering if someone could > > | point me in the right direction with regard to any > > | possible jquery issues [upgrading from version 1.2.6]." > > > That should be a common enough task that someone could provide general > > pointers, or even be an FAQ entry. If the requirement is really that > > hard to understand, the regulars of that forum could have asked for > > more information. > > The sample code that poster provided linked to three unknown scripts, > included a couple unreferenced functions, provided no URL. I suppose > someone could have pointed him/her to: > http://docs.jquery.com/Release:jQuery_1.3#Upgrading > ... but I'm not surprised no one bothered. > > I can only imagine the reception that poster would have received here > with that caliber of question. They'd have been told what to do, which beats a blank any day. |