|
It's a bad idea to drop product that is a household name, but IE is considered old and is losing market share as we speak. It is risky, though.
|
|
|
|
|
and focus on the stuff that makes them money, and us money.
They can keep a bare bones browser, but let Google/etc. handle the browser stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft needs a good CEO.
People forget how innovative MS was in the early days. Windows, Office sweet (which is still bringing in the money, Access, COM, DHTML, SOAP ... IE was infinitely superior to Netscape. Unfortunately Monkey-boy was terrible and managed to even miss the phone market. IE was allowed to rot. And Windows seems to get worse after each major release.
I'm afraid I don't think Satya Nadella is the answer either.
|
|
|
|
|
Very good points. I agree. In my mind I equate Microsoft to any great person or entity that used to be a top contender and now they are not. The CEO for MS now is just as bad as Ballmer was, if not worse.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never understood the debate about which browser is best - they all do pretty much the same thing. So, they get rid of IE and replace it with something which does the same thing.
I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
The whole debate comes from web developers, not users. IE (used to be?) is behind other browsers when it comes to implementing web standards and the developers hate it. Most regular users couldn't care less and have every right to not care.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that makes sense. But then why is a new browser a good thing - it's yet one more test case for web developers.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
...and throw away HTML at the same time.
Why do we need a "human readable" browser language at all?
Why not do it in a more transfer efficient manner and use a binary format instead? Getting rid of CSS, and HTML, and all that (probably obsolete) baggage could make the whole thing work better...and we would stand a chance of getting "browser independence" at the same time. I don;t know about you, but I'm sick and tired of having "special case" web code to deal with the various flavours and interpretations of HTML out there, and having to test everything on at least three different browsers...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Seconded. HTML is a vile curse on the earth.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's throw JavaScript onto the same pile while we're at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Horrible Terrible Moronic Language
Crappy Stupid Sunshines
Just Another Vile Awful Script
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Oh f*** yes, chuck the whole web stack and start again, do it right, machines are fast enough to render as you design (well almost). Give the poor bloody users a decent UI and the developers something that make a modicum of sense.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I have a different set of opinion. Although, I completely understand the pain as I am also going through the same as yours.
1. Let's keep HTML the same and work on better GZip/compression system while transfer via network.
2. W3C should force browsers to implement the standard.
3. Human readable HTML is good because it helped much while debugging via. Developer Tools, Fiddler, etc. It also helps to understand the request and response quite easily.
I think of 2 solutions:
We should have only ONE widely accepted browser for all purpose.
OR
all browsers should follow same W3C standards for HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
Life is a computer program and everyone is the programmer of his own life.
|
|
|
|
|
Anurag Gandhi wrote: Human readable HTML is good because it helped much while debugging via. Developer Tools, Fiddler, etc
So...you debug your C# (or VB) by looking at the native binary or IL code then? I use a specific tool for that which lets me produce the code at a high level and translate it to a more efficient low level for actual execution. I then debug it in the high level language and let the system sort out the low level for me.
Anurag Gandhi wrote: We should have only ONE widely accepted browser for all purpose
You want a monopoly? That doesn't help improvements: the poor quality of existsing browsers is what got us the much better ones we have today!
Anurag Gandhi wrote: all browsers should follow same W3C standards for HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
They do. Just they interpret it differently, because it isn't a "true" standard - it's an evolved, hacked, broken, extended mess that never intended to be what it has ended up as.
The only reason it was human readable at all was because it made it easy to write in a text editor!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: you debug your C# (or VB) by looking at the native binary or IL code then? I use a specific tool for that
Agreed, but debugging human readable code seems quite easier in client server architecture. I understand you are among the top developers, but I have seen people struggling even writing HTML. (I know thats a different story.  )
OriginalGriff wrote: You want a monopoly?
I really didn't mean that. I meant that all companies should use same open source browser and stop creating/continuing the crap versions of his own. Similar to JQuery which is widely accepted library for all companies/development organization. It might create a security breach but I am sure there should be a way to handle it.
OriginalGriff wrote: They do. Just they interpret it differently,
Agreed. But even some latest browsers have there specific CSS 3 code and they haven't implemented W3C yet.
Life is a computer program and everyone is the programmer of his own life.
|
|
|
|
|
Anurag Gandhi wrote: Agreed, but debugging human readable code seems quite easier in client server architecture
Why? Why not have a "debug browser" in the same way we have a "windows debugger"?
That way, the code is only visible to those who actually need it (and by preference have the source code handy as well) - security improves, execution speed improves, debug facilities improve, etc....
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
That's just polishing a turd.
Even Tim Berners-Lee had the decency to say that after he'd seen The Mother of All Demos (Doug Englebart) that he wished he was aware of it before starting to design HTML. It simply is not fit for purpose.
The browser should be more like an O/S, just give tasks an area to render into, and mediate all requests for services to ensure security. Ideally, like an O/S with a good object-capability model for security.
Nobody ever had any difficulties debugging GUIs in Smalltalk, and that was 30 years ago now. HTML was an enormous step in the wrong direction.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Would get my +5000, but only +5 is available... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
There's a good TED talk by Alan Kay (can't link yet - at work) in which he shows pictures of Einstein, Newton and Darwin to a room of programmers, who all recognise them, then shows them pictures of Englebart, John McCarthy (LISP), Jacob Goldman (Xerox PARC), Bob Barton (Invented bytecode at Burroughs) and other pioneers of computing, none of whom were recognised.
He summarised this situation as illustrating why computing isn't a science yet - nobody knows who these pioneers were, so are condemned not to learn from them. (You've probably guessed I'd include Alan Kay in my personal list).
Imagine a physicist who didn't know who Newton was.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to change it now!
We can create a server that uses WCF net tcp (or even plain tcp socket) to handle requests. With Razor, we can compile exising asp.net mvc (cshtml) files on the server, get a string, perhaps use an in memory compressor, and then pass it to the client. We need a browser app on the client that can communicate over WCF, decompress and display in memory html.
With that in place, second version can start with sending objects to client instead of html or strings. Since objects have type, type-specific optimizations can be applied.
It's a cool project really! It can work with existing technologies. We just need to add few layers in between.
|
|
|
|
|
It may be cool, but all it's doing is adding further complication layers on top of an existing pile of steaming layers! 
If your car engine is smoking, you don't bolt an extra exhaust filter on the roof to remove the toxic stuff, you replace the piston rings or the valve stem seals to stop it burning the engine oil in the first place!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, version one I talked about above is that but version two isn't. Technically, there's a bit difference! I mean to use the good parts of exising technology. In your example, let's not throw away the entire car, but replace bad bad parts of the engine! :-P
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - but in this case the bad parts are HTML and Javascript!
To continue the car analogy, if you pull out the engine and find that it's not just the piston rings, but the bores, pistons, and big end bearings are made of chocolate, the cam is gold plated wood, the oil pump is missing, and there is a huge hole in the crankcase that has been covered with silver painted cardboard: then its time to get a whole new car!
And at the moment, that is what we have: a rotten core to the whole presentation system - HTML.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Never mind the fact that we would have just invented a browser and technology stack tied to a single platform/VM. Not exactly progress.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
