Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 25th Feb 2010 10:18 UTC
Humor BBC News reports "Mark your diaries for 4 March because in Denver the funeral arrangements are well underway for the planned passing that day of Internet Explorer 6". There's a phobia of being buried alive but I think in this case, it's the living that are all too quick to be shoveling the dirt over as IE6 doesn't officially die until 2014 when Microsoft pull the life-support.
Permalink for comment 411263
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Lazy developers
by deathshadow on Fri 26th Feb 2010 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Lazy developers"
Member since:

thats where IE6 can be layouted with conditional includes

Which if resorted to usually means the developer doesn't know enough HTML and CSS to be doing the work they are doing. It can be done without that conditional bullcookies too.

hell starts with all dynamic web applications which have become modern...

Many of which are such coding disasters out of the gate they are a miserable /FAIL/ - NOT because of the web technologies, but because the coders don't have a **** clue what they are doing which is why the resort to crap bloated frameworks like jquery and mootools - usually either for **** CSS can do without help, or for **** that turns the website into a total accessibility /FAIL/.

Also modern layouts do not scale well with all their transparencies and rounded corners

1) If you are talking alpha transparancy, those fat bloated slow .png resulting in two megabyte websites are usually sufficient cause to bitch slap the developer. Pre-compositing can get rid of 90% of alpha transparency use - and the rest can often be pulled off with 'close enough' aliasing with palettized transparency; Both of which usually result in smaller files.

This is teh intartubes, smaller files are a good thing.

I am glad that Google is doing this.

Last I checked, google has nothing to do with the funeral.

Btw. the more dynamic content you get in the higher the effort becomes, my last count was 30% of additional implementation time to support IE6 in dynamic rich client interfaces on the ajax side of things.

Then I would suspect you are using AJAX for **** you shouldn't be using AJAX for, though if it IS something you should use AJAX for, are you tacking on some bloated framework along with that? You know, the only thing you can learn from jquery is how NOT to write javascript?

That or you're blowing bandwidth on *** that could be handled faster server side... especially with AJAX still requiring server side programming to function.

In IE6 having two separate rendering engines for different types of controls which are not properly synchronized against each other

Not certain what you mean by that, but it sounds like you are overcomplicating whatever it is that was trying to be done.

performance issues on the dom tree

Ok, you have me on that. IE's DOM is slow - which is why you are better off not dicking with the DOM in the first place... The whole 'official' way of creating new elements in js torques my nuts since it ends up like 20 lines of complex dom chicanery for what could be done in one line with InnerHTML.

Which is why I think innerHTML should be made official and no longer considered proprietary; but since every browser with a .js engine actually supports it, I don't give a **** if it's 'offically in the specification' or not.

Though creating elements via javascript, aka DHTML, is a miserable **** accessibility /FAIL/ you shouldn't be doing in the first damned place. Javascript should enhance functionality, NOT supplant it. (just like CSS and every other optional technology you can put atop HTML)

So many websites out there right now are unusable garbage becuase of things like DHTML... See Google basically giving Opera users the finger and telling them to *** off when it comes to Google Apps.

Reply Parent Score: 2