emscripten

[Lutger Blijdestijn]

Adam D.  Ruppe wrote:

> bearophile:
>> On a more modern browser it works "well enough" (Firefox 4).
> 
> This is a bit of a rant, but I hate how the web community
> always uses "modern browser" like this.
> 
> I ran this site on Firefox 3.6.3. The most recent one it offers
> on getfirefox.com is 3.6.13 - I'm not very far behind! My about
> firefox box says Gecko from April 2010.
> 
> That should be modern by any sane definition!
> 
> (Now, my every day browser, Konqueror 3.5.7, is (c) 2005. So
> I can understand it not being a "modern browser". But it works
> for me so I won't change it. Something I find hilarious though:
> it's CSS2 compliance was better than firefox up until about
> last year!
> 
> I just wrote a site going wild with css for a web demo for the
> company, and it worked almost as well in my old Konq as it did
> in my newer Firefox. The kde folks did a really impressive job
> there.)
> 
> 
> Anyway, it just irks me that so many web evangelists say "modern"
> when they really mean "bleeding edge". And in Google's case, it
> is even worse: when they say "all modern browsers", they actually
> mean "/our/ bleeding edge beta". It really annoys me.
> 

I'm more used to the term in "every modern browser, except IE", in which 
case it is usually correct and modern means something from this or last year 
(except IE). Good old Konq from 2005 for example has better CSS2 support 
than IE8.