Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by proyb2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

proyb2

Isn't Safari Technical Preview supported 100% ES6?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11708840

View on HN

Not only Technology Preview, but already released Safari 10 is currently the only 100% ES2015 (ES6) compliant browser.

https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/

Apple definitely keeps up with core JavaScript and CSS support, but essentially anywhere the web undermines their attempt to maintain control over a protocol, file format, or API--or for anything that makes the browser fundamentally more powerful (which undermines their attempt to get developers to focus on native applications, and which stuff like ES6 is fundamentally not an example)--they invest only a token amount of effort at best and at worst they seem to actively cause more fragmentation (by pushing Safari-only proprietary and sometimes even patent-encumbered alternatives).

Have you examples?

Service Workers, Pointer Events, Web Notifications, WebRTC... I could probably go on, but these are the ones everyone generally has at the top of their heads and which I can just rattle off without thinking about it much (and which have already been mentioned by other people on this very threads, and so absolutely should not require listing :/). The story of IndexedDB vs WebSQL (with Safari developers apparently being extreme zealots for the latter and essentially refusing to implement the former for years) is another great example. I recommend doing some basic searches using Google, as there is tons of great commentary on how Safari is "the new IE6" or is simply holding back the web.

Firefox was just the opposite on Indexed DB/WebSQL. History written by the victors.

Firefox argued that WebSQL was a terrible idea that shouldn't become a standard, and the other vendors eventually agreed, including some that were already shipping it.

Right. "[Firefox] developers apparently being extreme zealots for [IndexedDB] and essentially refusing to implement [WebSQL] for years"

No, that is actually a serious mischaracterization, to be point of being actually malicious. The point wasn't that it had to be IndexedDB, the point was that it couldn't be WebSQL as long as the latter relied on specific SQLite implementation details.

Given that nobody wanted to fix the WebSQL proposals (they had already been deployed, and some apps relied on them, making it impossible - good job there) there was no choice but to move to another proposal (IndexedDB).

If you do not understand why tying standards to specific implementations is a bad idea, I feel sorry for you. Good for us, the rest of the industry is - most of the time - smarter than that.

WebSQL was never going to be picked up by Microsoft either: it was a WebKit-only concept that was doomed from the start.

It was a SQLite only concept, not so much a WebKit only concept. Of course defining the API for years to come based on the quirks of one particular implementation was terrible, even if somewhat convenient at the time.

Opera might disagree.

Opera is WebKit based, so your remark is not well placed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com