Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: A kind of flush ?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:23:29 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <f5nar75aimcdc8iqn3mmo766il3c0sg79u@4ax.com>
References: <4fb17b40$0$6460$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <3JPyL9G2zqsPFwgA@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> <4fb348f0$0$1719$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <XnsA055AD0B3EC89eejj99@194.109.133.133> <nml7r7l02bkhc573ui5463chpf7j2khnjt@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="wKah3EH8kutwAOV6+9FiEQ"; logging-data="23358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZBk5IDJWoAm2vCt+CguD2LQG8ylYLwEI="
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QlPj0IaYvTboslup/7vVLJ5GKpw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:14033

On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:43:20 +0100, Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 16 May 2012 15:00:39 GMT, "Evertjan."
><exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:
>
>>Even if it just a good way of exercising your programming skills, one 
>>should aim to include as much modern browser compatibility as feasable.
>
>Whilst laudable (and indeed, I strive for this in my own feeble way),
>some of us work in closed environments where only certain browsers are
>approved. Sometimes the list is just one (Ministry of Defence
>contracts spring to mind).

     Should another be added to the list and your code breaks, you
will not look so good.

>Personally, I'm obliged to support only IE8 and above or FF10 ESR (at
>the moment, it's a moving target).
>
>So, any extra effort to support other browsers, or other releases
>comes out of our own pockets. Indeed, it's worse than that; I'm in
>competition with other developers in our organisation, and if I'm less
>productive than them, then I get shown the door. 

     It might not be more than minor.  If you do not concern yourself
with more than the minimum, you might also be shown the door.  It is
also possible that once you do work out the more general approach, it
is easier to use.

>How much for Opera/Safari/Chome support now?
>
>When insisting that we all tolerate the differences, we have to accept
>that one possible difference is someone who cannot tolerate
>differences, for one reason or another. :-)

     Ah, yes, bigots.  <BEG>


     I read Evertjan's reply before replying.  I agree with his post.

     That stated, I currently have a situation where my code works in
IE 9 (the approved browser), but due to some of the stuff that I am
doing, it does not work quite right in Firefox.  My priority is to get
to code that the end users can run, but the Firefox deficiency is
fairly high on the list to deal with.  When I know more JavaScript, I
expect it will be easier to deal with.  There is no way that I want my
code to not work with a common browser if it is all that easy to have
it work.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko