Trying Chrome now, bad news

S

Stevo

Look at the userAgent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

It's based on a Safari so it'll suck. Time we all quit so we don't have
to support this thing, because there's no doubt it'll be popular.
 
D

David Mark

Look at the userAgent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

Better yet, don't. That's miatake #1. See Prototype, jQuery, etc.
 
A

Aaron Gray

Stevo said:
Look at the userAgent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML,
like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

It's based on a Safari so it'll suck. Time we all quit so we don't have to
support this thing, because there's no doubt it'll be popular.

Looks okay to me, V8 (it Javascript interpreter) is about 7 times faster
than FF and about 20 times faster than IE.

Looks like a nice browser to me.

Aaron
 
D

David Mark

Looks okay to me, V8 (it Javascript interpreter) is about 7 times faster
than FF and about 20 times faster than IE.

Looks like a nice browser to me.

It looks like Safari to me, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
S

Stevo

David said:
Better yet, don't. That's miatake #1. See Prototype, jQuery, etc.

Not sure what you're talking about. What have Prototype and jQuery got
to do with Chrome being based on Safari and therefore sucking?
 
A

Aaron Gray

David Mark said:
It looks like Safari to me, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Yep, it has SVG and weighs in at 620KBytes, and loads over 20 times faster
than Safari !

Aaron
 
A

Aaron Gray

Aaron Gray said:
Yep, it has SVG and weighs in at 620KBytes, and loads over 20 times faster
than Safari !

Ah theres a 8MByte DLL too !

Althought the installer is only 475KBytes, so presumably the installer
downloads the essentials.

Aaron
 
D

David Mark

Not sure what you're talking about. What have Prototype and jQuery got
to do with Chrome being based on Safari and therefore sucking?

I did not comment on the Safari -> sucking issue in that post.

The point is that brain-dead libraries, such as Prototype and the
like, branch based on the userAgent property and therefore will be
thrown for a loop by this (or virtually any) new browser.

BTW, the browser in question looks and acts like Safari. Provided
your scripts do not branch on browser names, you will be fine.
 
T

timothytoe

I did not comment on the Safari -> sucking issue in that post.

The point is that brain-dead libraries, such as Prototype and the
like, branch based on the userAgent property and therefore will be
thrown for a loop by this (or virtually any) new browser.

BTW, the browser in question looks and acts like Safari.  Provided
your scripts do not branch on browser names, you will be fine.

jQuery isn't thrown for a loop by Chrome, as far as I can tell. I have
a very jQuery-intensive app that works wonderfully in Chrome. From
reading Google's comic book, it sounds like they've been testing this
on all the big sites, including jQuery sites.
 
D

David Mark

jQuery isn't thrown for a loop by Chrome, as far as I can tell. I have

Are you sure? Can anyone really be sure?
a very jQuery-intensive app that works wonderfully in Chrome. From

By coincidence.
reading Google's comic book, it sounds like they've been testing this
on all the big sites, including jQuery sites.- Hide quoted text -

Testing a browser against jQuery. Now there's a concept.
 
T

timothytoe

Are you sure?  Can anyone really be sure?


By coincidence.


Testing a browser against jQuery.  Now there's a concept.

I can't be sure that all jQuery sites will work, of course. But I've
visited many that work just fine, and none that seem to have failed.
I'm eager for someone to show me a website that uses jQuery that fails
in Chrome.

When someone predicts doom, I'd love the prediction to be followed up
by an actual case of doom.

The conjecture of doom was a reasonable one, but it looks as if Google
has addressed it reasonably well.
 
X

Xu, Qian

Stevo said:
Look at the userAgent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

It's based on a Safari so it'll suck. Time we all quit so we don't have
to support this thing, because there's no doubt it'll be popular.

It is a great product. I suppose, that it will be the biggest killer of
Opera and Safari (on Windows) very soon.
 
D

David Mark

I can't be sure that all jQuery sites will work, of course. But I've

Of course.
visited many that work just fine, and none that seem to have failed.

And how many browsers did you visit these sites with?
I'm eager for someone to show me a website that uses jQuery that fails
in Chrome.

Why? Isn't it enough that it branches on the name of the browser.
How many browsers are there now?
When someone predicts doom, I'd love the prediction to be followed up
by an actual case of doom.

Have you read the jQuery source? That's all you really need to know.
The conjecture of doom was a reasonable one, but it looks as if Google
has addressed it reasonably well.

Google has nothing to do with it. You missed my point.
 
K

kangax

Look at the userAgent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

It's based on a Safari so it'll suck. Time we all quit so we don't have

It's actually based on WebKit (rev. 525.13) - the same engine Safari
is built upon (though Safari uses different build in latest version).

Why will something "based on Safari" suck is beyond my understanding.

Could you elaborate?
 
D

Dr J R Stockton

In comp.lang.javascript message said:
Look at the userAgent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

It's based on a Safari so it'll suck. Time we all quit so we don't have
to support this thing, because there's no doubt it'll be popular.

What does the yellow column in <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-
datex.htm#Auto> show in Chrome? Any other Date funnies?

What do the test forms in <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-
randm.htm#MR> show? Only the Numbers are of interest.
 
C

Chris Riesbeck

Dr said:
What does the yellow column in <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-
datex.htm#Auto> show in Chrome? Any other Date funnies?

Same as Firefox 3 except rows 5, 6 and N are false instead of true.
What do the test forms in <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-
randm.htm#MR> show? Only the Numbers are of interest.

Clicking ? for the Loops 100000, I get 100000 OK

Clicking ResolB I get General resolution is at least 30 bits.

Clicking ResolC I get Range resolution is at least 30 bits.

Is that what you wanted?
 
C

Chris Riesbeck

Chris said:
Same as Firefox 3 except rows 5, 6 and N are false instead of true.


Clicking ? for the Loops 100000, I get 100000 OK

Clicking ResolB I get General resolution is at least 30 bits.

Clicking ResolC I get Range resolution is at least 30 bits.

Is that what you wanted?

Oops -- overlooked ResolA

Clicking ResolA I get Maximum resolution is 2^-30 or better.

I'd closed Chrome, then saw ResolA in Firefox. I reopened Chrome and the
default tab showed my recent pages and one click took me back to your
test page. I'm not ready to use Chrome till the carpet bombing bug is
fixed, at the least, but I've liked playing with it so far, and it's
been happy with some of my more complicated scripts.
 
J

Jorge

I'd closed Chrome, then saw ResolA in Firefox. I reopened Chrome and the
default tab showed my recent pages and one click took me back to your
test page. I'm not ready to use Chrome till the carpet bombing bug is
fixed, at the least, but I've liked playing with it so far, and it's
been happy with some of my more complicated scripts.

Does it run on squirrelfish as well, I mean, as it's based on webkit
then maybe...
 
L

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen

Stevo said:
Look at the userAgent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

It's based on a Safari so it'll suck. Time we all quit so we don't
have to support this thing, because there's no doubt it'll be popular.

What's so bad about Safari - or rather, about WebKit?
It's DOM standards compliance is fairly good (first to Acid 2 and best
at Acid 3 so far).
The Javascript engine was rewritten, so whatever flaws it may have
(it's still in beta, so I bet there are some) won't be related to
Safari.

/L
 
S

slebetman

Does it run on squirrelfish as well, I mean, as it's based on webkit
then maybe...

It doesn't run squirrelfish but something a bit better: it runs V8:

http://code.google.com/p/v8/

It's a JIT compiler for javascript. No, not a bytecode compiler like
squirrelfish but direct-to-native-instructions javascript.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,781
Messages
2,569,615
Members
45,297
Latest member
EngineerD

Latest Threads

Top