Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Jun 2009 15:56 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones As was anticipated, the boys and girls at Mozilla have released the final build of Firefox 3.5 today. Firefox 3.5 - originally supposed to be 3.1 - comes with many welcome improvements, chief among which is support for HTML5 audio and video tags.
Thread beginning with comment 370874
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Javascipt Speed
by sbergman27 on Tue 30th Jun 2009 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Javascipt Speed"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

...an excellent product (that uses less memory than any other major browser)...

I'll believe that when I see it. I will accept that FF has, perhaps, gotten "better", consuming memory somewhat less rapaciously than before.

Regarding relative Javascript performance, our previous discussions have left me with the impression that you have something of an anti-agenda regarding Javascript, as a reult of screen-reader technology having lagged so.

Edited 2009-06-30 16:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Javascipt Speed
by darknexus on Tue 30th Jun 2009 16:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Javascipt Speed"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

our previous discussions have left me with the impression that you have something of an anti-agenda regarding Javascript, as a reult of screen-reader technology having lagged so.

Do not talk about that which you do not understand. To find a screen reader that doesn't support js is rare indeed, save for the pure CLI and in that case the browsers themselves don't support JS much. Of course, whether said product makes it easy to understand what is going on as a result of js is another matter and some are better than others and they vary in how complicated they make it. The major Windows screen readers, for example, can make browsing the simplest web sites a chore whilst the Macintosh with Safari and the built-in Voiceover screen reader makes it a breeze.
But in any case, I think this is straying a bit off topic.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Javascipt Speed
by sbergman27 on Tue 30th Jun 2009 16:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Javascipt Speed"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Do not talk about that which you do not understand.
...
The major Windows screen readers, for example, can make browsing the simplest web sites a chore whilst the Macintosh with Safari and the built-in Voiceover screen reader makes it a breeze.

Thanks for the informed update on the reality of the situation. But my comment concerned my impression of how Kroc felt about the matter last time we discussed the issue.

As I posted it, I expected to hear from you. And was correct in assuming that your comment would be interesting and informative.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Javascipt Speed
by Kroc on Tue 30th Jun 2009 16:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Javascipt Speed"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
Believe it.

Bad web developers go to JavaScript first to solve their problems; JavaScript is the tool I go to once all other tools have been used properly and to their fullest. I have coded things in JavaScript years ahead of their time.

It’s not that I hate JavaScript, I hate shoddy solutions that don’t degrade gracefully at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Javascipt Speed
by Erunno on Tue 30th Jun 2009 17:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Javascipt Speed"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

Here's an interesting discussion about the numbers:

http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/thread/0f...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Javascipt Speed
by sbergman27 on Tue 30th Jun 2009 17:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Javascipt Speed"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I would agree that a server-side approach is to be preferred. It is *usually* the better technical solution when it is feasable. What I disagree with is the idea that graceful degradation to accomodate those people who refuse to enable Javascript is somehow sacred.

If people refuse to enable javascript they should expect to miss out on stuff. If they cannot use Javascript, do to physical disability, then they should complain to their vendors of screen interpreting software.

Although, as Jacob has reported, there are, apparently, good options today.

Edited 2009-06-30 17:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3