[dmd-beta] Well, I keep trying to do the release

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:51:02 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:39:18 -0400
> > Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:33 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> 
> >>> But, as it is with git itself, it's best not to use [github] with
> >>> Windows or any Windows programs.
> >> 
> >> Firefox is a windows program, no?
> >> 
> > 
> > GitHub is only barely/partially usable in my copy of FF...(Although
> > that's probably not so much the fact that it's FF as which version
> > of FF and how its configured...)
> 
> Mine works great!  I wouldn't expect support if you don't use a later
> version, or one that is crippled.
> 

Yea, I don't doubt it would work fine on modern versions of FF. Problem
is, I can't stand modern versions of FF ;)

http://tinyurl.com/d7clhya

Funny thing is though, most of the web works just fine even on my
"ancient" version of FF, and even with JS off. Imagine that!

Interestingly, the sites that go out of their way to be "modern"
and "correct" are the only ones that break. Everything else works
perfectly fine on both older *AND* newer browsers.

> BTW, I used to have two profiles for firefox, one that disabled
> flash, and one that had it enabled.  I was sick of stupid web video
> ads that I didn't care about slowing my system down, so whenever I
> actually wanted to watch a video, I would start up firefox in the
> other profile.  It was clunky, but it got the job done.
> 

http://noscript.net/

Placeholder boxes where flash applets are. Click on them to run them.
Works fantastic. (Also has other great features and tons of
configurability.) As I am nearly incapable of reading text when
something's animating (no eggageration), I would have entirely given up
on the web years ago if it weren't for NoScript. (Not sure if I should
credit NoScript for keeping me on the Web, or blame it ;) )

> > 
> >> I suppose it's not really the same, since visual source safe
> >> doesn't come with Windows, but still... you went through the
> >> trouble of installing git, why wouldn't you consider installing
> >> another browser just for github access?
> > 
> > Ick, why should GitHub expect people to do that? A person has
> > already made their choice of browser. GitHub has no business
> > expecting them to use GitHub with *GitHub's* choice of browser.
> > It's a web browser, it should just fucking work.
> 
> I don't think you realized the irony of the last sentence there :)
> 

Poorly worded on my part. What I meant is that *sites* should "just
f*** work", without any BS excuses about "That browser isn't as shiny
new and perfect as I wish it was! Use what *I* say is a worthy browser
or fuck off because *my* time and desires and preferences are far more
important than *YOU*, the user!" (Software's supposed to be made for
the user, not for the developer.)

> Anyway, I don't think github is built using non-standard extensions
> to anything, it's just that IE really sucks at adhering to standards.
> 

Uhh, yea, in my experience, the complaints about IE's compatibility are
heavily overstated. Hell, I've actually had bigger problems with FF
(although it's possible that may have changed with, what are they up
to, like v27 now?). IE typically only gives you trouble if you're doing
it wrong to begin with: Expecting to be pixel-perfect, using CSS for
layout (just f*** dumb to begin with), getting overly fancy or pedantic
with your HTML/CSS, etc. Stick to pragmatism and YAGNI and IE
compatibility all the way back to 7 is fucking easy, contrary to all
the claims.

> Every browser has its quirks, you can't expect a company to support
> them all  including all historic versions of them.

First of all, I don't expect everything to be perfect. And really, I
don't actually *expect* FF2 compatibility (even if it does annoy me
to not get it). What I *do* actually expect is a quality modern browser
that doesn't *FORCE* the Chrome school of UI design down my throat
(There is no such browser, BTW). That's all. (Well, that and for sites
to not be broken on the world's most common web browser, even if I don't
personally use it.)

> While I think
> there is a huge business case for supporting IE, since it's a very
> popular browser, it is truly a pain in the ass to support. Yeah, I'm
> sure you don't agree because "CSS sucks", but that's just the way it
> is.  If you simply accepted this, you may find yourself being a bit
> less grumpy :)
> 

If people "simply accepted" the *realities* of CSS (that it's *just not
good* at many of the things people insist on doing with it), then
compatibility would shoot through the roof with NO DOWNSIDE other than
getting less of that warm fuzzy feeling of "I'm implementing this the politically-correct way! Wheee!".

And CSS doesn't suck. It just sucks at layouts (and IMO dropdown menus).
It's perfectly acceptable for styling. Not perfect, but certainly not
"suck".