Hacker News Reader

Comment by zip1234 | Hacker News Reader

The funny? thing is that IE has become better than Chrome for a lot of stuff because Chrome keeps dropping support for things that it used to support. The frequency of updates means that your stuff could just stop working one day when it worked perfectly fine the previous day. It requires constant attention to make sure things won't break. The most recent one to get us was the File.lastModifiedDate

View on HN

To be fair, File.lastModifiedDate was never a standard. In my experience, as long as you stick to the stuff that's actually an accepted standard your code will last a long time.

FWIW, removed on Firefox too:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1458883

and lastModified works in both (and IE):

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/File/lastMo...

I agree but if the latest document is a draft? That is how lastModifiedDate ended up in those browsers in the first place. Obviously, going back would have noticed that it was removed from the spec and updated accordingly. The point is that IE has maintained backwards compatibility and Chrome has not.

That's why you don't implement anything that's a draft. Obviously easier said than done, but if you want your code to be around for a long time it's the only sensible path.

I agree in principal, but the standards can move very slow. Look at WebRTC. It is only a 'candidate recommendation'.

That's the tradeoff you have to accept if you want stable code.

You gave a single example and it is also deprecated and removed from Mozilla and never supported in Safari etiher, apparently it is not part of the spec now.

I guess that could be true for some things, but as a web dev (albeit n00b).... IE is still the odd man out support wise or wonky behavior wise the vast majority of times in my experience.

> The funny? thing is that IE has become better than Chrome for a lot of stuff because Chrome keeps dropping support for things that it used to support.

This is something that I often wrote in the past also on HN: businesses desire stability and administerability for the software that they use. In the past, Microsoft was best at satisfying this desire.

That's Google in a nutshell: Develop something great and then just... let it... die.

The truth is, if they let it die It's highly likely it was not useful. G+, wave, RSS feeds, etc, legacy services that needed to be replaced for security sake.

It's unfortunate end users have to be dragged along kicking and screaming, but thankfully google is willing to do it for the end users own good.

Not useful to whom? I used to greatly enjoy their RSS reader. I'm still enjoying Inbox, for as long as I can keep it, and I dread going back to regular Gmail. When Google kills a product, it's more likely than not for their own good, not mine.

Most of the useful inbox featues have been moved into the new Gmail though.

I mean, i get it, I liked inbox too, but gmail is basically inbox 2.0 now.

I did give Gmail another try, but it absolutely did not feel like Inbox to me--at least not the parts that made me switch in the first place.

Doesn't mean it isn't crap? It's so much slower than the old Gmail. Things don't immediately commit, and I get asked to I want to leave when I close the webmail now. Everyone just needs inconsistent systems now. What ever happened to consistent systems and changes being committed as soon as possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com