Time for Chrome to go
-
I'm sorry, Google. The time has come to tell you that you need to withdraw Chrome. Although I love your search engine, I have grown to dislike your browser. Why? First, as a developer, I am again facing the "browser wars." Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers. But usually I find myself Googling for Chrome solutions. Secondly, the Google Chrome development team is arrogant. I understand the frustration that the team may feel in trying to keep standards compliant, but to reject a large percentage of the development community requests for repair is arrogant and ill-conceived. Standards can be wrong! They are the creations of humans and are fraught with misinterpretations and possibly downright errors. I speak from personal experience as a former member of the X3J9 standards technical committee. Google, you have a looser on your hands. And I think that is true in both the marketplace (ranking just above Bing) as well as in the developer community. So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
-
I'm sorry, Google. The time has come to tell you that you need to withdraw Chrome. Although I love your search engine, I have grown to dislike your browser. Why? First, as a developer, I am again facing the "browser wars." Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers. But usually I find myself Googling for Chrome solutions. Secondly, the Google Chrome development team is arrogant. I understand the frustration that the team may feel in trying to keep standards compliant, but to reject a large percentage of the development community requests for repair is arrogant and ill-conceived. Standards can be wrong! They are the creations of humans and are fraught with misinterpretations and possibly downright errors. I speak from personal experience as a former member of the X3J9 standards technical committee. Google, you have a looser on your hands. And I think that is true in both the marketplace (ranking just above Bing) as well as in the developer community. So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
gggustafson wrote:
So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
:thumbsup:
Cheers,
SMPRecent Tip/Tricks
Prevent a drag and drop text and Copy paste text in your textbox control
Find a column name within SQL database -
I'm sorry, Google. The time has come to tell you that you need to withdraw Chrome. Although I love your search engine, I have grown to dislike your browser. Why? First, as a developer, I am again facing the "browser wars." Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers. But usually I find myself Googling for Chrome solutions. Secondly, the Google Chrome development team is arrogant. I understand the frustration that the team may feel in trying to keep standards compliant, but to reject a large percentage of the development community requests for repair is arrogant and ill-conceived. Standards can be wrong! They are the creations of humans and are fraught with misinterpretations and possibly downright errors. I speak from personal experience as a former member of the X3J9 standards technical committee. Google, you have a looser on your hands. And I think that is true in both the marketplace (ranking just above Bing) as well as in the developer community. So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
Chrome is my primary browser, so when I develop web apps then Chrome is the first one to be tested for layout - so it works exactly as planned. So far this has not been a issue, yes there have been differences that require different CSS classes for some parts, but these specific parts usually require slightly different code for all the 5 browsers you mentioned anyway. So while yes, it may be another browser to test in, it is just a small price to pay for a great browser. And before you say how bad Chrome is, then why is it the other browsers (namely IE) want to look like it so much? And lest we forget Chrome is currently winning the HTML 5 compliant race[^]
If my jokes make me laugh, then I have already succeeded with 100% of my target audience
-
I'm sorry, Google. The time has come to tell you that you need to withdraw Chrome. Although I love your search engine, I have grown to dislike your browser. Why? First, as a developer, I am again facing the "browser wars." Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers. But usually I find myself Googling for Chrome solutions. Secondly, the Google Chrome development team is arrogant. I understand the frustration that the team may feel in trying to keep standards compliant, but to reject a large percentage of the development community requests for repair is arrogant and ill-conceived. Standards can be wrong! They are the creations of humans and are fraught with misinterpretations and possibly downright errors. I speak from personal experience as a former member of the X3J9 standards technical committee. Google, you have a looser on your hands. And I think that is true in both the marketplace (ranking just above Bing) as well as in the developer community. So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
gggustafson wrote:
Google, you have a looser on your hands.
A looser what? I suspect you meant "loser".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
gggustafson wrote:
Google, you have a looser on your hands.
A looser what? I suspect you meant "loser".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
gggustafson wrote:
So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
:thumbsup:
Cheers,
SMPRecent Tip/Tricks
Prevent a drag and drop text and Copy paste text in your textbox control
Find a column name within SQL databaseNooo, Chrome has to stay. . . The Chrome team come up with an awesome idea and say "look at what you can do now; this is actually possible". The FF team see it and implement their own version. By this time a standard begins to emerge, so they follow some of that. The IE team see it and implement their own version, but get rid of half the features and ignore the standards (or do they. . . I may be out of date now that IE9/10/11(?) is out). The Opera team take the full standards and implement them properly, but get ignored by most users since who really wants a standards compliant browser when you can have one on the cutting edge?
-
gggustafson wrote:
Google, you have a looser on your hands.
A looser what? I suspect you meant "loser".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997How true! My spellchecker let me down.
-
Apple will certainly have a looser something when Google finish with them :laugh:
If my jokes make me laugh, then I have already succeeded with 100% of my target audience
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Stool?
Yes, I have it on good authority that one of the core Apple (or is that Apple core) developers is actually a Google employee sent in to sabotage their office furniture. I do hope they catch it on film next time SJ tries to sit down :)
If my jokes make me laugh, then I have already succeeded with 100% of my target audience
-
Nooo, Chrome has to stay. . . The Chrome team come up with an awesome idea and say "look at what you can do now; this is actually possible". The FF team see it and implement their own version. By this time a standard begins to emerge, so they follow some of that. The IE team see it and implement their own version, but get rid of half the features and ignore the standards (or do they. . . I may be out of date now that IE9/10/11(?) is out). The Opera team take the full standards and implement them properly, but get ignored by most users since who really wants a standards compliant browser when you can have one on the cutting edge?
John, I believe that any product that requires that I spend an inordinate amount of time making a web page work is unacceptable. I fear that's what Chrome does. Just consider the impacts on a business that uses the web extensively. Most will produce their web site using some Microsoft product. And when Chrome doesn't work? The reaction is simply that they do not have the time or the manpower to make the site cross-browser compatible.
-
How true! My spellchecker let me down.
gggustafson wrote:
My spellchecker let me down.
Actually, it didn't. "looser" is a real word, so the spell-checker was correctly doing it's job. What we need in browsers is a lexical parser that can determine what you're trying to say and indicate where you might want to use a different word. This would be a boon to people that don't know when to use 0) "there", "their", and "they're" 1) "too", "to", and "two" 2) "it's" and "its" 3) "see", "sea", and "si". 4) "site" and "sight" 5) "dough" and "doe" 6) "so" and "sew" BTW, why does "dough" sound like "doe", but "tough" doesn't sound like "toe"? It's no wonder English is so hard to learn...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
gggustafson wrote:
My spellchecker let me down.
Actually, it didn't. "looser" is a real word, so the spell-checker was correctly doing it's job. What we need in browsers is a lexical parser that can determine what you're trying to say and indicate where you might want to use a different word. This would be a boon to people that don't know when to use 0) "there", "their", and "they're" 1) "too", "to", and "two" 2) "it's" and "its" 3) "see", "sea", and "si". 4) "site" and "sight" 5) "dough" and "doe" 6) "so" and "sew" BTW, why does "dough" sound like "doe", but "tough" doesn't sound like "toe"? It's no wonder English is so hard to learn...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
John, I believe that any product that requires that I spend an inordinate amount of time making a web page work is unacceptable. I fear that's what Chrome does. Just consider the impacts on a business that uses the web extensively. Most will produce their web site using some Microsoft product. And when Chrome doesn't work? The reaction is simply that they do not have the time or the manpower to make the site cross-browser compatible.
Agreed, but I think on existing technologies Chrome is compatible. It's only on cutting edge stuff where there are differences, since there were no standards when that functionality was created and Google are pushing for things to move forward (before Chrome, HTML4 had been hanging around stagnant for years; MS had their Active X workarounds and Google pushed a bit with Gears, but then Google realised the only way to drive the web forward was by pulling with their own browser; shortly after which HTML5 was born). As the standards catch up, I'm pretty sure Google are making Chrome support them; I'll admit that a site which works on IE may not work on Chrome; but that's more likely down to IE not following the standards (again, I've heard the latest version of IE is fully compliant, but haven't played, so am treating that news with a pinch of salt).
-
Chrome is my primary browser, so when I develop web apps then Chrome is the first one to be tested for layout - so it works exactly as planned. So far this has not been a issue, yes there have been differences that require different CSS classes for some parts, but these specific parts usually require slightly different code for all the 5 browsers you mentioned anyway. So while yes, it may be another browser to test in, it is just a small price to pay for a great browser. And before you say how bad Chrome is, then why is it the other browsers (namely IE) want to look like it so much? And lest we forget Chrome is currently winning the HTML 5 compliant race[^]
If my jokes make me laugh, then I have already succeeded with 100% of my target audience
You are in a minority - although a very vocal minority. Most web pages are developed using a Microsoft product. Thus, the target browser is IE. From Browser Statistics Internet Explorer 8: 33% Firefox 3: 23% Internet Explorer 6: 13% Internet Explorer 7: 9% Google Chrome: 7% Safari (all versions): 3% All that I'm saying is that the Chrome development team missed the mark. Not that Chrome is bad. Just that I experience significant difficulties with it.
-
gggustafson wrote:
So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
:thumbsup:
Cheers,
SMPRecent Tip/Tricks
Prevent a drag and drop text and Copy paste text in your textbox control
Find a column name within SQL database -
John, I believe that any product that requires that I spend an inordinate amount of time making a web page work is unacceptable. I fear that's what Chrome does. Just consider the impacts on a business that uses the web extensively. Most will produce their web site using some Microsoft product. And when Chrome doesn't work? The reaction is simply that they do not have the time or the manpower to make the site cross-browser compatible.
gggustafson wrote:
Most will produce their web site using some Microsoft product. And when Chrome doesn't work? The reaction is simply that they do not have the time or the manpower to make the site cross-browser compatible.
It wasn't that long ago that I was hearing the same argument about FF. Chrome is, by the way, here to stay. I expect that within five years it will have surpassed FF in market share.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
gggustafson wrote:
Most will produce their web site using some Microsoft product. And when Chrome doesn't work? The reaction is simply that they do not have the time or the manpower to make the site cross-browser compatible.
It wasn't that long ago that I was hearing the same argument about FF. Chrome is, by the way, here to stay. I expect that within five years it will have surpassed FF in market share.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
You are in a minority - although a very vocal minority. Most web pages are developed using a Microsoft product. Thus, the target browser is IE. From Browser Statistics Internet Explorer 8: 33% Firefox 3: 23% Internet Explorer 6: 13% Internet Explorer 7: 9% Google Chrome: 7% Safari (all versions): 3% All that I'm saying is that the Chrome development team missed the mark. Not that Chrome is bad. Just that I experience significant difficulties with it.
I wouldn't recommend using statistics that are obviously a little old, especially since the point you are trying to show, Chrome's low market share, has a comment on it that says it is rapidly growing.
-
I'm sorry, Google. The time has come to tell you that you need to withdraw Chrome. Although I love your search engine, I have grown to dislike your browser. Why? First, as a developer, I am again facing the "browser wars." Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers. But usually I find myself Googling for Chrome solutions. Secondly, the Google Chrome development team is arrogant. I understand the frustration that the team may feel in trying to keep standards compliant, but to reject a large percentage of the development community requests for repair is arrogant and ill-conceived. Standards can be wrong! They are the creations of humans and are fraught with misinterpretations and possibly downright errors. I speak from personal experience as a former member of the X3J9 standards technical committee. Google, you have a looser on your hands. And I think that is true in both the marketplace (ranking just above Bing) as well as in the developer community. So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
Are you kidding? Chrome is the only Google product I use. A very fast and sleek browser.
-
Google Wave had a context checker that worked well.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
ChrisElston wrote:
Google Wave had a ...
Important word there is 'had'. Does anyone actually use Google Wave?