Time for Chrome to go
-
I'm sorry. You are putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing. What I did say was that Chrome needs fixing or withdrawal. I also said that the Chrome development team was arrogant. I stand by both. Gus
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I disagree. For those fluent in English, incorrectly spelled words and/or invalid syntax disrupts the flow of the communication, annoys the hell out of the recipient, and dilutes the intended message. Not only are the messages not understood, but further commu nication is intentioinally avoided, thus harming the intent of the original message.
I had so much trouble reading that, the flow was just off, which really annoyed me, and made it so that I had no idea what you meant. I'm now forced to cut off all further communication...
"The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?" -- Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
Srroy, I cna't hlep but dmeonsatrte how lttile sepllnig raelly mttaers to the hauman eye. (msot nroamlly wolud not eevn nticoe if jsut one wrod was awry) (OK, we aren't excatly normal.)
-
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 Gustav but if you can`t keep up doesn`t mean a browser should go. Not so long ago IE was going through the same path. Than Firefox. If something is broken you don`t just throw it away, you try and fix it. In my opinion Chrome is by far the best browser.
NO. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
-
I`m sorry Gustav but if you can`t keep up doesn`t mean a browser should go. Not so long ago IE was going through the same path. Than Firefox. If something is broken you don`t just throw it away, you try and fix it. In my opinion Chrome is by far the best browser.
NO. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
I don't think I said anything different. Fix it or throw it. Also, stop flaming! I'm a professional and take umbrage at your use of the phrase "if you can't keep up."
-
I don't think I said anything different. Fix it or throw it. Also, stop flaming! I'm a professional and take umbrage at your use of the phrase "if you can't keep up."
No offense gggustafson but I can't quite call you a professional if you are so eager to say 'Time for chrome to go'. I'd say you are a bit frustrated, but by no means I consider, nor do I see Google Chrome as trash-worthy. I'd be pissed too if the stuff from Google would ignore me but this is by no means the way to go on with your war. Just my opinion.
NO. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
-
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.
For all practical purposes I'm not a web developer, but I am a heavy web user, and have seldom seen Chrome fail to render a webpage correctly. Besides, try as I might I cannot let go of it anymore... I can tell, because I tried going back to Firefox back when version 4 was released, and couldn't stand how slow the thing ran on my poor Core2 Duo notebook – not counting that then and again it would go nuts on some Flash advertisement and take up 2GB of memory, effectively freezing my machine. Also, having been spoiled by Chrome, I don't think I'll put up anymore with restarting every time an update or new plug-in is installed. I'm sorry Gustaf, but I guess you'll have to deal with it. Even if Chrome is such big a nightmare for web developers, for web users it's sublime – and where the web market is concerned, the word of users is the word of God.
-
For all practical purposes I'm not a web developer, but I am a heavy web user, and have seldom seen Chrome fail to render a webpage correctly. Besides, try as I might I cannot let go of it anymore... I can tell, because I tried going back to Firefox back when version 4 was released, and couldn't stand how slow the thing ran on my poor Core2 Duo notebook – not counting that then and again it would go nuts on some Flash advertisement and take up 2GB of memory, effectively freezing my machine. Also, having been spoiled by Chrome, I don't think I'll put up anymore with restarting every time an update or new plug-in is installed. I'm sorry Gustaf, but I guess you'll have to deal with it. Even if Chrome is such big a nightmare for web developers, for web users it's sublime – and where the web market is concerned, the word of users is the word of God.
Please do not misunderstand what I am about to say. Because you are not a developer, it is very difficult for you to grasp the amount of work that goes into even the simplest web page. It takes an extraordinary effort to get web pages to be cross-browser compatible, and the one browser that is making it more difficult is Chrome. The Chrome development team needs to fix the problem. What you see on Chrome should be what you see on other browsers, ignoring minor differences in color, line thickness, etc. And what you see on other browsers should be what you see on Chrome. As a developer, I must spend an inordinate amount of time making my web page display "correctly" on Chrome. All the other major browsers, Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari (FOSI) accept the pages, normally after some minor tweaks. For Chrome, it is major tweaks. In the most recent problem, I had to change the way that a part of the web page was presented to the browser. FOSI browsers accepted the way that I had designed the web page. Chrome did not. This extra effort to make web pages viewable in Chrome is one reason that US businesses and the US Government do not target Chrome (of course, they also do not target Firefox, Opera, and Safari either). But as a professional developer, I do target FOSI. I also try to make my pages viewable in Chrome. But to be honest, I keep asking if it's really worth the effort. As a Chrome user, you'd probably answer "yes." But the manager, whose whole organization is geared towards IE, would probably answer "no." As a note, "and where the web market is concerned, the word of users is the word of God" is not true in the major US business and US Government worlds. Those worlds are concerned with costs not the users. If I succeed in my efforts to be cross-browser compatible, you (a non-technical user) will see no differences. But understand the pain that I had to go through to make that happen. Regards, Gus
-
Please do not misunderstand what I am about to say. Because you are not a developer, it is very difficult for you to grasp the amount of work that goes into even the simplest web page. It takes an extraordinary effort to get web pages to be cross-browser compatible, and the one browser that is making it more difficult is Chrome. The Chrome development team needs to fix the problem. What you see on Chrome should be what you see on other browsers, ignoring minor differences in color, line thickness, etc. And what you see on other browsers should be what you see on Chrome. As a developer, I must spend an inordinate amount of time making my web page display "correctly" on Chrome. All the other major browsers, Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari (FOSI) accept the pages, normally after some minor tweaks. For Chrome, it is major tweaks. In the most recent problem, I had to change the way that a part of the web page was presented to the browser. FOSI browsers accepted the way that I had designed the web page. Chrome did not. This extra effort to make web pages viewable in Chrome is one reason that US businesses and the US Government do not target Chrome (of course, they also do not target Firefox, Opera, and Safari either). But as a professional developer, I do target FOSI. I also try to make my pages viewable in Chrome. But to be honest, I keep asking if it's really worth the effort. As a Chrome user, you'd probably answer "yes." But the manager, whose whole organization is geared towards IE, would probably answer "no." As a note, "and where the web market is concerned, the word of users is the word of God" is not true in the major US business and US Government worlds. Those worlds are concerned with costs not the users. If I succeed in my efforts to be cross-browser compatible, you (a non-technical user) will see no differences. But understand the pain that I had to go through to make that happen. Regards, Gus
Please do not misunderstand what I am about to say. Because you are not a developer, it is very difficult for you to grasp the amount of work that goes into even the simplest web page. Perhaps I should have qualified that while I have never worked with web programming professionaly, I do know enough about it to see just how much work goes into writing sophisticated web pages and making them work across browsers. But alas, my point is that it doesn't matter, because as hard it might be developing for Chrome (and a lot of people in this thread seem to dispute how much that is), its user experience is leagues ahead of the competition. I say that without any bias towards Google or their product. In fact I'd rather not have abandoned Firefox as my main browser, as it provides several plugins (e.g. LiveHTTPHeaders, wmlbrowser) which I use at work and have no hope of ever seeing replicated in Chrome; it's just that Google's browser is so much snappier, Firefox has become unbearably clunky by comparison. I'd love to see this contrast erased, and it does look like Mozilla is doing its best to catch up, but for the time being there's no way I can switch back. This extra effort to make web pages viewable in Chrome is one reason that US businesses and the US Government do not target Chrome (of course, they also do not target Firefox, Opera, and Safari either). It's curious how the second part of your statement negates the value of the first as an argument for your point. According to yourself, "US businesses and the US Government" don't target Chrome simply because they target IE and nothing else; therefore it has little to do with the amount of work (inordinate or otherwise) needed to make web pages cross-browser. If anything it's an argument for Chrome acceptance; if they were ever going to support a browser other than IE, which one sounds more likely?
-
Please do not misunderstand what I am about to say. Because you are not a developer, it is very difficult for you to grasp the amount of work that goes into even the simplest web page. Perhaps I should have qualified that while I have never worked with web programming professionaly, I do know enough about it to see just how much work goes into writing sophisticated web pages and making them work across browsers. But alas, my point is that it doesn't matter, because as hard it might be developing for Chrome (and a lot of people in this thread seem to dispute how much that is), its user experience is leagues ahead of the competition. I say that without any bias towards Google or their product. In fact I'd rather not have abandoned Firefox as my main browser, as it provides several plugins (e.g. LiveHTTPHeaders, wmlbrowser) which I use at work and have no hope of ever seeing replicated in Chrome; it's just that Google's browser is so much snappier, Firefox has become unbearably clunky by comparison. I'd love to see this contrast erased, and it does look like Mozilla is doing its best to catch up, but for the time being there's no way I can switch back. This extra effort to make web pages viewable in Chrome is one reason that US businesses and the US Government do not target Chrome (of course, they also do not target Firefox, Opera, and Safari either). It's curious how the second part of your statement negates the value of the first as an argument for your point. According to yourself, "US businesses and the US Government" don't target Chrome simply because they target IE and nothing else; therefore it has little to do with the amount of work (inordinate or otherwise) needed to make web pages cross-browser. If anything it's an argument for Chrome acceptance; if they were ever going to support a browser other than IE, which one sounds more likely?
I think most professional developers want to see their efforts used by as a wide an audience as possible. Some, myself included, have tried to convince managers that web pages should be cross-browser compatible. But when faced with the costs of doing that, all the replies to my suggestions have been negative. Please note that I am making no judgment as to which browser is the "best." I leave that to users. Insofar as the current targeting positions of the US Government and US businesses, I doubt they will ever change. All development that I've participated in was targeted at IE. No exceptions. There is no doubt that Microsoft has captured the development environments of the US Government and US businesses. As long as Microsoft has this hold, nothing will change. I'm not suggesting that your choice of browsers is wrong. Just that it may be unfortunate. I don't know what else I can say other than that Google must fix Chrome! I would consider it an embarrassment if a product of mine executed so badly. Gus
-
I think you're missing his point. You would not need to go slower and re-read your posts if you used the same high-quality English everywhere. It is because you have the two versions of typing that it requires extra effort on your part to type correctly the first time through. (Granted, mistakes will still be made, but the frequency should be a lot lower.)
-
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.
Funny, but I haven't seen any other Windows users complain about this. Try tiling your windows when Chrome is open. Note how it is completely outside the resizing calculations. And when I am minimizing a bunch of applications one after another (because I don't want to "Show Desktop", okay?), I position my mouse where the minimize button is and start clicking. Then BAM! Chrome's screwed up positioning causes it to do something different.
Narf.
-
Funny, but I haven't seen any other Windows users complain about this. Try tiling your windows when Chrome is open. Note how it is completely outside the resizing calculations. And when I am minimizing a bunch of applications one after another (because I don't want to "Show Desktop", okay?), I position my mouse where the minimize button is and start clicking. Then BAM! Chrome's screwed up positioning causes it to do something different.
Narf.
I did not know that. Thanks. Gus