943
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] herrvogel@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago

I stopped doing frontend work when responsive design became important. Super unpleasant work. Now I'm happier at the backend where I don't have to worry about how my shit looks on the 7 million possible screen sizes people are likely to use. Life is more peaceful here.

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 40 points 1 year ago

Frontend developer here, please save me from my torment, thanks

[-] Kichae@kbin.social 46 points 1 year ago

Have you considered just forcing everyone to access your sites via Internet Explorer 5.5?

[-] ronalicious@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

and netscape navigator. ah my glory days!

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Ahh the old Nutscrape Aggrivator. Refused to update with Microsoft standards and spent the next 8 years being a pain in the ass for website compatibility.

[-] martinb@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago
[-] quicksand@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Sounds like we're due for a history lesson.

[-] martinb@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

No. I was just looking for an example of when Microsoft created standards for IE that other browsers could adopt, given that they were tied into IIS and undocumented in order to give them an uncompetitive advantage. Let's also think about how they deliberately downgraded performance, or broke functionality on non Microsoft browsers, again for anti competitive behaviour.

They were called browser wars for a reason, and Microsoft is very well documented indeed regarding their fuckerry. But you go ahead trolling.

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, everything you said is correct, ipso facto Microsoft won and was setting the standards at the time.

The competitors still had significant market share and thus their obstinance to follow the leader lead to a large portion of users that had to be catered to by web developers for compatibility due to corporate requirements for access to these market shares.

Thus because these competitors weren't the key demographic, in the context of a developer, they were an additional burden due to the severe lack of uniform standards between major platforms.

[-] martinb@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago

No they were not setting standards. They were in fact breaking them. Their own standards were not disclosed, forcing competitors to actually have to reverse engineer them in order to try to have a chance at compatibility. The whole reason for the lack of uniformity was Microsoft fucking with the standards!

Secondly, the competitors did not have a significant market share. Thirdly, it's funny that you mention in the context of a developer, given that they all complain mightily, even to this day, about having to support the festering pile of IE versions still around. Still, this won't stop you telling, so you go do your thing elsewhere please.

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure, just ignore the context I provided and substitute it for your own, doesn't change they were the market maker and the primary development platform for web with IE, I know this because I've probably been a developer longer than you've been alive, and had to create work arounds for compatability with netscape for those 8 years I mentioned.

What do you mean the competitors didn't have market share, in '98 netscape was 41.5% of all browsers to IE's 48.3%. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Your idealistic hard on with Microsoft' s tactics doesn't change the reality that they became market leader, or that they were the ones using that influence to drive standards. Saying the standards weren't known is also bullshit because we were developing on those standards. So yes, Microsoft was market leader and Microsoft was calling the shots for website development standards, because they had market share whether you like how they got there or not, it doesn't change this objective fact.

Funny how you want to engage in part of a conversation and then instead of wanting to hear a rebuttal you just want me to go away so you can think happy ignorant thoughts. Why did you bother responding?

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

In 800x600 pixel resolution.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

As recently as 6 or 7 years ago I maintained some apps that forced 5.5 compatibility mode. Because they were poorly architected in a shitty framework and no one was willing to do or pay for or train for a rewritten version. They were finally migrating to .NET when I left. It was the govt so they are likely wrapping up that migration now.

[-] traches@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

Alright hang on now - responsive design is about not excluding people based on the device they're using. Many people do everything in their lives from a low end cell phone and cutting them out is a shit thing to do. Responsive design and progressive enhancement are objectively good things.

The tools have gotten better over the past several years, it's not as hard as it used to be.

[-] herrvogel@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

? Who said anything about excluding anything or anyone? I'm just saying I don't like the work that has to go into making sure nobody's excluded. In a way, I'm not excluding anyone by excluding everyone now. I quit frontend altogether, left other people to deal with it. At the backend I don't have to worry about what kind of screen the other end might be using to view the JSON string I sent them. You don't get "I just looked at your response headers on my 32:9 monitor that I divided into 9 randomly sized tiles and it looks like shit, please fix" calls when you work backend.

[-] nyan@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 year ago

Better? Not really. My experience is that sites have gotten "better" for mobile at the cost of making them nearly or completely unusable for people using desktop browsers with non-default settings (especially additional security lockdown, but even forcing a specific colour scheme can break some sites because some idiot calling himself a designer used css background-image for images that are content). Which means a fair number of sites are broken to some degree for me.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[-] traches@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Those things are completely unrelated? I said the tools for responsive design have gotten better, which they objectively have.

You're not wrong that most css in the wild is trash, and I love dark mode as much as the next guy but you can't complain that sites break when you're fucking with styles. It's the cost of tinkering.

[-] candyman337@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Modern frameworks make responsive design easier but yes it is still a lot to wrap your head around. I remember building my hs robotics team website in high school right as responsive design was becoming a thing. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN I HAVE TO NEST A CONTAINER IN A CONTAINER I ALREADY HAVE ONE!!!"

Bless those who came up with flexbox

[-] LeafEriksen@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I love to see the occasional flexbox appreciation, since at least for me (someone just getting into Design/Web dev) flexbox changed responsive design from being a totally unfeasible project to being genuinely fun to work on, and sometimes the most exciting part!

[-] drathvedro@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago
[-] ditherwither@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is literal art

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
943 points (96.2% liked)

Programmer Humor

19821 readers
535 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS