Trying Chrome now, bad news

**David Mark** · Sep 2 '08, 10:15 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:

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.

**Aaron Gray** · Sep 2 '08, 10:35 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

"Stevo" <no@mail.invali dwrote in message
news:g9k61a$nsg $03$1@news.t-online.com...

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

**David Mark** · Sep 2 '08, 10:55 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

On Sep 2, 6:27 pm, "Aaron Gray" <ang.use...@gma il.comwrote:

"Stevo" <n...@mail.inva lidwrote in message
>
news:g9k61a$nsg $03$1@news.t-online.com...
>

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.

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

**Aaron Gray** · Sep 2 '08, 11:05 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

"David Mark" <dmark.cinsoft@ gmail.comwrote in message
news:9ac09414-e476-4b72-9d98-825ec3e9b765@e5 3g2000hsa.googl egroups.com...

On Sep 2, 6:27 pm, "Aaron Gray" <ang.use...@gma il.comwrote:

>"Stevo" <n...@mail.inva lidwrote in message
>>
>news:g9k61a$ns g$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>>

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.

>
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

**Stevo** · Sep 2 '08, 11:05 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

David Mark wrote:

On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:

>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.

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

**Aaron Gray** · Sep 2 '08, 11:05 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

"Aaron Gray" <ang.usenet@gma il.comwrote in message
news:6i5unkFp2f jpU1@mid.indivi dual.net...

"David Mark" <dmark.cinsoft@ gmail.comwrote in message
news:9ac09414-e476-4b72-9d98-825ec3e9b765@e5 3g2000hsa.googl egroups.com...

>On Sep 2, 6:27 pm, "Aaron Gray" <ang.use...@gma il.comwrote:

>>"Stevo" <n...@mail.inva lidwrote in message
>>>
>>news:g9k61a$n sg$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>>>
>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.

>>
>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 !

Ah theres a 8MByte DLL too !

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

Aaron

**David Mark** · Sep 2 '08, 11:15 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

On Sep 2, 6:57 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:

David Mark wrote:

On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:

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.

>
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.

**timothytoe** · Sep 2 '08, 11:25 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

On Sep 2, 4:09 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

On Sep 2, 6:57 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:
>

David Mark wrote:

On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:
>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.

>

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.

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.

**David Mark** · Sep 2 '08, 11:55 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

On Sep 2, 7:22 pm, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:

On Sep 2, 4:09 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:
>
>
>
>
>

On Sep 2, 6:57 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:

>

David Mark wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:
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.

>

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.

>
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.

**timothytoe** · Sep 3 '08, 12:25 AM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

On Sep 2, 4:47 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

On Sep 2, 7:22 pm, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:
>
>
>

On Sep 2, 4:09 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

>

On Sep 2, 6:57 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:

>

David Mark wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:
>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.

>

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.

>

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.

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.

**Xu, Qian** · Sep 3 '08, 12:55 AM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

Stevo wrote:

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.

--
Xu, Qian (stanleyxu)

stanleyxu's area51

http://stanleyxu2005.blogspot.com

**David Mark** · Sep 3 '08, 01:35 AM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

On Sep 2, 8:19 pm, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:

On Sep 2, 4:47 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:
>
>
>

On Sep 2, 7:22 pm, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:

>

On Sep 2, 4:09 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

>

On Sep 2, 6:57 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:

>

David Mark wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:
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.

>

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.

>

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.

>
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.

**kangax** · Sep 3 '08, 04:25 AM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

On Sep 2, 4:00 pm, Stevo <n...@mail.inva lidwrote:

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?

to support this thing, because there's no doubt it'll be popular.

--
kangax

**Dr J R Stockton** · Sep 3 '08, 05:35 PM

Re: Trying Chrome now, bad news

In comp.lang.javas cript message <g9k61a$nsg$03$ 1@news.t-online.com>,
Tue, 2 Sep 2008 22:00:41, Stevo <no@mail.invali dposted:

>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#Autos how in Chrome? Any other Date funnies?

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

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/clpb-faq.txt RAH Prins : c.l.p.b mFAQ;
<URL:ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqp.zipTimo Salmi's Turbo Pascal FAQ.

Trying Chrome now, bad news

Trying Chrome now, bad news

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment