Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

jQuery 2.0 Will Drop Support For IE 6, 7, 8

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

Internet Explorer 250

benfrog writes "The developers of jQuery recently announced in a blog entry that jQuery 2.0 will drop support for legacy versions of Internet Explorer. The release will come in parallel with version 1.9, however, which will include support for older versions of IE. The versions will offer full API compatibility, but 2.0 will 'benefit from a faster implementation that doesn't have to rely on legacy compatibility hacks.'"

cancel ×

250 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Like (4, Insightful)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#40642215)

I like this however I'm guessing anyone that starts using this will have a boat load of complains thus 2.0 won't be used for several years. Sadly. Damn IE slowing down even non-IE users!

Re:Like (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642259)

I agree that a lot of situations will not be able to move to 2.0, but I bet you will see it implemented a lot more than you would expect.

Re:Like (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642375)

I agree. You see more and more websites that are dropping compatibility with older versions of IE, and direct users to Firefox or Chrome. It's a good thing too. It's annoying to dumb down on features for website, just because a small portion of them refuse to upgrade to better browsers.

Corporate websites, it's not going to matter. They'll just continue using an old version of jQuery on Firefox 3.6 or something.

Re:Like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642273)

If you deal with IE6/7/8 users, don't use it. If you don't, feel free.

The problem is they're dropping support for 8, which is still popular. 7 is still popularish, but wouldn't be that big a deal at under 10%. 6 is practically dead at this point.

IE8 = "latest" version for many (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#40642505)

I can see dropping IE6 & IE7, because there's no sound reason for anyone to still be using them. But IE8 is the terminal version of IE for Windows XP, which remains one of the most widely-used operating systems on the planet. It's not going to go away just because someone doesn't want to support it any more.

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (5, Interesting)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#40642633)

The problem is that IE8 handles Javascript in much the same non-standard way als IE6 & IE7. If a library such as jQuery includes support for IE8, it's supporting IE6 & IE7 as well.

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (4, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#40642899)

However my organization just Upgraded to IE 8.

There isn't any plan to be going to 9 in the near future as there are too apps that have issues with following Open Standards.

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (2)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#40642929)

That's why the jQuery team is going to provide security fixes for 1.9 for a while.

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 2 years ago | (#40643087)

Chrome + IEtab = solved

configure IETab to use IE when chrome hits one of your ass-backwards web apps.

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (3, Informative)

steveb3210 (962811) | about 2 years ago | (#40643093)

Why do organizations target specific versions of browsers - I really don't understand why its so hard for people to write cross-browser web applications - I do it every day at my job..

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 2 years ago | (#40643317)

What if a developer needs a (standard) feature that a browser doesn't support?

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643389)

What if a developer needs a (standard) feature that a browser doesn't support?

Well, then you need to make a choice. Is this nifty new feature so useful that you risk alienating some of your website visitors?

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642663)

It's not going to go away just because someone doesn't want to support it any more.

But it might go away once no one wants to support it anymore.

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (4, Informative)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#40642665)

You can use conditional comments to load the older version of JQuery for IE6, 7 and 8 so it's not as bad as it seems. Web designers have been doing this for years to hack around Microsoft's incompetence,

Re:IE8 = "latest" version for many (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40643115)

Not the statistics I see on statcounter for the US. China is an outliner that gives a false impression on netmarketshare/appliances etc because they only run pirated software over there. Unless you make Mandrin websites that shouldn't matter.

Windows 7 in the US and Europe already hit 50% and XP is dying fast. There were barely be double digit marketshare by the end of next year. It is time to move on and start supporting newer standards. Look at this way? The iphone came out in 2007 with css and html 5 support for its apps. That was 5 years ago and we still have these issues because it is so far behind and it is common that we should be implementing css 3 and html 5 and use JIT javascript engines to not leave these users behind, but the corps will make us use IE 8 until 2020 if they can.

Browsers should be upgraded frequently like Windows Update. If developers stop supporting like they did with 16 bit Win 3.x apps, dos, netscape, the corps move on. If not we still would be using Windows 3.1 with Netscape 4.7 today. Why? It works fine!

IE 8 in the US already drops down to 11% markethsare on the weekends according to www.gstatcounter.com! It is on its way out and it is time people moved iwth the times.

Hate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642329)

This is horrible - not because i like these browsers, but because so many people use jQ for just that - make web sites work in as many browsers as possible.

Re:Like (5, Informative)

Kate6 (895650) | about 2 years ago | (#40642333)

You see the bit where it says "full API compatibility"? That means with a few lines of PHP (or some equivalent back-end language) you can have a look at the user's browser USERAGENT string, figure out if it's an MSIE browser or not and serve the preferable version of jQuery... 1.9 for legacy IE, 2.0 for IE9 and for standards compliant browsers. And the "full API compatibility" means the rest of your code will play nice with either.

Re:Like (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642473)

User agent sniffing is for tards. Just like PHP. Are you a tard? Much safer and less tarded is to use IE's conditional comments.

Re:Like (2)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#40642537)

Or use Modernizr's browser identification.

Re:Like (2)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#40642559)

This is fine for 1.9/2.0 but what happens when 2.1 and 2.2 come out? The API's will diverge.

I hope 1.9 stays api compatible, but I would doubt it.

Re:Like (3, Interesting)

Kate6 (895650) | about 2 years ago | (#40642615)

There's already a fair bit of divergence between what you can do in IE and what you can do in other browsers.  IE (including IE9) doesn't implement as much of HTML5 as other browsers.  IE's SVG support is in its infancy compared to other browsers', and completely nonexistent before IE9.

So we might end up with some jQuery functionality silently being disabled in legacy versions of IE too.  Big whoop.

Re:Like (1)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#40642649)

Once a version of jQuery 2.x comes out with an API which isn't compatible with 1.9, IE8 better be long forgotten.

Re:Like (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#40642817)

jQuery comes out with new API's all the time.. Remember live was deprecated by delegate, then by on... this stuff seems to happen *EVERY* single version.

Re:Like (4, Informative)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#40642883)

But .delegate(), .on() and .live() all still work with recent versions of jQuery, so your old code still runs with newer versions of the library. New features being introduced is not bad. The pain starts when old features are dropped.

Re:Like (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#40643371)

XP (and therefore IE6/7/8) is not going to be with us forever, either.

Re:Like (1)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#40642721)

What about some jQuery plugin that requires 1.9 or 2.0?

Sorry but I don't like having to write a website 6 times over. One for each IE 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 then Firefox and Chrome. Writing a site now and once I'm done go back and add CSS tweaks for special IE is already a pain in the ass.

Re:Like (1)

Kate6 (895650) | about 2 years ago | (#40642781)

If, as the article suggest, there will be "full API compatibility" then any plugins that require one of them should also work with the other.

Don't get me wrong, full API compatibility is one heck of a claim to make and I guess we'll have to see just how close they actually get to it indeed being full.  But assuming they largely make good on their claim, this just isn't really major news.  They're creating a more optimized version of their library for more modern browsers.

Big whoop.

Re:Like (4, Insightful)

madprof (4723) | about 2 years ago | (#40642947)

Holy moley. I might be saying what others say but please, for the love of everything good, use conditional comments.
They've been around since IE5. You will love them.

Re:Like (1, Flamebait)

Kate6 (895650) | about 2 years ago | (#40642987)

I don't love anything about IE.  IE is that extra browser I have to load VMware to test stuff in.

Re:Like (1)

cheesecake23 (1110663) | about 2 years ago | (#40642503)

Sadly. Damn IE slowing down even non-IE users!

Even more sadly, this is not news. IE has been effectively sabotaging the non-IE community for years. The need to specifically code for IE6 and IE7 due to their crappy compliance with web standards has swallowed immense amounts of global developer effort, which could otherwise have been invested in improving the interwebs for everyone.

Just die already.

Re:Like (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40642711)

Sadly. Damn IE slowing down even non-IE users!

Even more sadly, this is not news. IE has been effectively sabotaging the non-IE community for years. The need to specifically code for IE6 and IE7 due to their crappy compliance with web standards has swallowed immense amounts of global developer effort, which could otherwise have been invested in improving the interwebs for everyone.

Just die already.

You Cheesecake23 have been misled by a vocal minority! [saveie6.com]

Re:Like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643071)

Is that site a joke, or was it written by a moron? I couldn't quite tell.

Re:Like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643279)

Is that site a joke, or was it written by a moron? I couldn't quite tell.

It is loaded with all sorts of seriousness and professionalism [saveie6.com] . The comments too from the front page just give it away.

“Now that I've switched to IE6, I'll never go back to Lynx again!”
Sue Donym

“Trying to get your website to work correctly in IE6 is like a puzzle game! Challenging and fun!”
Nathan

“Developing websites for other browsers than IE6 is just pure pain! The tables just don’t display the way they do in IE6.”
Dean T. P

Re:Like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642961)

The need to specifically code for IE6 and IE7 due to their crappy compliance with web standards has swallowed immense amounts of global developer effort, which could otherwise have been invested in improving the interwebs for everyone.

There is no *need* to code for old IEs.

There is just the web developers' *urge* of to produce flashy crappy blinking rolling sliding shaking tilting sites which make the user puke in less than five minutes.

Despite being cradle of the marquee tag, I find right now the old IEs to be a good anchor weight which forces web developers to make sites which are more "useful" than "look cool in my portfolio." Unfortunately, even the old IEs allow for too much crap...

Re:Like (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#40643051)

Given most (not all) web development makes things worse, that seems like a good thing.

Re:Like (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#40642585)

While normally useragent-based feature detection is a bad thing, it seems like one could selectively insert a script tag for either jQuery 1.9 or jQuery 2.0 (they are supposed to be API-compatible, yes?) depending on whether or not the user is using a legacy IE, without any performance hiccup.

Re:Like (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#40642731)

This [microsoft.com] is a far better way since anything non-IE pretending to be IE will just ignore these. Web designers have been using these for years to load special CSS workarounds for all the bugs in IE.

Re:Like (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#40643219)

I hear the people saying that, but what would you do to make the page load either one or the other jQuery, but not both? Loading two jQuery instances causes all sorts of problems if not handled well.

Having done web development for many years, believe me, I'm very familiar with all variety of IE-handling hacks. At the moment I can't think of a way to conditionally load jQuery 2.0 if and only if not using legacy IE, and load jQuery 1.9 if and only if using non-legacy IE or non-IE, using IE conditional comments. Besides, using server-side handling keeps the HTML output cleaner since all the user gets is the single, correct script tag.

Conditionally include 1.9/2.0 (1)

kawika (87069) | about 2 years ago | (#40643105)

True, Walmart.com will have IE 6/7/8 visitors for years to come, but there are plenty of places where someone might be using jQuery but not need IE 6/7/8 support. It could be a cutting-edge public web site, a desktop app using an embedded HTML rendering engine, or a mobile app where oldIE doesn't matter. You can either use jQuery 1.9 for now, or use graceful degradation to give those people a really basic experience and a nudge to upgrade.

They seem to be missing the point... (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642249)

I thought a large part of the appeal of jQuery was that it allowed you to avoid writing the crufty legacy browser code that you would normally have to re-implement for every application. If they no longer offer that then what is the point of using it?

Re:They seem to be missing the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642297)

The point of using it is it's awesome. So what's your alternative?

Use 1.9 until 2014-04-08 (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40642463)

The alternative is sticking with jQuery 1.9 until April 8, 2014 [microsoft.com] , and then flipping to jQuery 2.0.

Re:Use 1.9 until 2014-04-08 (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | about 2 years ago | (#40642529)

The alternative is sticking with jQuery 1.9 until April 8, 2014 [microsoft.com], and then flipping to jQuery 2.0.

Not necessarily. Just because MS doesn't officially support it anymore, doesn't mean it's going to just go away. Unfortunately, in our market (web-based MLS software), we're going to have to support these legacy versions long after MS ditches them.

Re:Use 1.9 until 2014-04-08 (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#40642967)

Not necessarily. Just because MS doesn't officially support it anymore, doesn't mean it's going to just go away. Unfortunately, in our market (web-based MLS software), we're going to have to support these legacy versions long after MS ditches them.

Agreed. In fact, I think there's at least a 25%-50% chance that Windows XP will never go away. What I think will happen is that a substantial number of large corporations and state/local/national governments will still be on WinXP in 2014, and unable to migrate up for a variety of reasons (logistics, legacy compatibility, IE6 ActiveX crap, etc.) As a result, I think there will be heavy pressure on Microsoft to lease the source code for WinXP to trusted third parties for continued maintenance and service. Expect a carrot-and-stick approach from the affected organizations: lots of money offered in contracts if WinXP continues to be somehow supportable, combined with threats that if they have to redo everything to leave XP, they might as well switch to MacOS or Linux instead of upgrading to the newest version of Windows. And, of course, governments have even more tools than this at their disposal if they don't like what MS is doing.

There's a very real possibility that we will see a de facto fork of Windows within the next five years.

Viewing any web site with IE 8 is unsafe (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40643069)

Just because MS doesn't officially support it anymore, doesn't mean it's going to just go away.

Even if Windows XP itself doesn't go away, old IE will if web sites start putting up wording like this: "As of April of 2014, Internet Explorer for Windows XP is no longer supported by Microsoft. It has known security defects that Microsoft will never fix, through which someone could break into your computer. Viewing any web site with Internet Explorer for Windows XP is potentially not safe. For your safety, we recommend using Firefox, SeaMonkey, Chrome, Safari, or Opera software to browse the web."

Re:Viewing any web site with IE 8 is unsafe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643191)

Sites can "recommend" it all they want. If governments and other organizations aren't willing to move beyond XP it doesn't matter.

Re:Viewing any web site with IE 8 is unsafe (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#40643381)

Most sites don't care about governments and large organizations, and target individual customers directly.

Re:Use 1.9 until 2014-04-08 (1)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#40642695)

No, the alternative is just to keep on moving forward and forget about old versions of IE. Simply don't support them. When enough websites do this, the IE-users will figure out the internet is broken with their browser and move to something which does work.

It's a prisoner's dilemma (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40643089)

When enough websites do this, the IE-users will figure out the internet is broken with their browser

But if not enough web sites do this, IE users will defect from web sites that no longer support IE to web sites that advertise that they still support IE. It's a prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org] .

Re:It's a prisoner's dilemma (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40643353)

Google was instrumental in stopping IE 6 and 7 in late 2009. Hell 1/5 of the webs traffic was IE 6 in the US (not China) until Youtube, gmail, and others put notices that we wont support your browser anymore.

It worked very well. That and advertisements for Chrome helped too for clueless users who did not know where to get a better browser as statistics show the majority of new Chrome users are former IE users and not FF.

Business will upgrade when people stop supporting it. They left DOS behind, Win 16 apps behind, and Netscape intranet software behind too. If enough people stop supporting it they will leave. It is the opposite of software being sold RIGHT NOW in 2012 that still requires XP and even IE 8 keeps these guys locked in. Not everyone is big like google and yes, they lost some Google Doc accounts to Office 365 for their refusal of IE 7 support, but it works.

People are ignorant and if something works fine and developers take external costs and time to themselves for free they will never leave. Have the cool CSS 3 sites only work in IE 9 or later and people will eventually upgrade.

IE Version Code Breakdown? (2)

lavaforge (245529) | about 2 years ago | (#40642289)

Does anyone here have enough knowledge of the JQuery codebase to say how the IE-specific cruft breaks down by version?

IE6 is a monstrosity; that's pretty much a given, and IE7 isn't great either. I could see dropping support for both of those being a big win in terms of cleaning up the codebase. That said, how much do they gain by dropping IE8 as well? It was only released 3 years ago.

Re:IE Version Code Breakdown? (5, Informative)

tobiasly (524456) | about 2 years ago | (#40642501)

Does anyone here have enough knowledge of the JQuery codebase to say how the IE-specific cruft breaks down by version?

IE6 is a monstrosity; that's pretty much a given, and IE7 isn't great either. I could see dropping support for both of those being a big win in terms of cleaning up the codebase. That said, how much do they gain by dropping IE8 as well? It was only released 3 years ago.

The "promoted reader comment" in the linked Ars article [arstechnica.com] actually answers exactly that:

Drizzt321 wrote:
Wow, removing support for IE8? That's a really bold move. I can see IE6 & 7, those are rather old and should be deprecated and people should be really encouraged to move to newer versions.

John Resig has said in interviews that most of the IE6 and IE7 code is needed for IE8 as well. While IE8 has far better layout and CSS engine evidently it still has pretty bad DOM API. Resig pointed out that dropping support for IE6 and IE7 would have very little impact on the size and complexity of the library unless they drop IE8 as well

Re:IE Version Code Breakdown? (4, Informative)

kawika (87069) | about 2 years ago | (#40642757)

As far as bugs and quirks go, a lot of the ones in IE6 and IE7 are also present in IE8. In specific, things like eating HTML5 tags, the lack of true opacity support and the proprietary IE event model that used attachEvent instead of addEventListener. There's quite a bit of code in jQuery to deal with IE event issues, for example the lack of a bubbling change event. IE8 managed to plug some memory leaks and wasn't as bizarre with the "attroperties" issue as IE7 was, but they still have a lot of sins in common.

So it's like Python 3 (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40642291)

Developers tend not to write programs for Python 3 because most end users who have Python installed have Python 2 installed, and some Python environments (such as Windows) can't easily have multiple versions installed side-by-side. Likewise, developers will continue to use the jQuery 1.9 branch because until April 2014, when Windows XP reaches its end of life, a lot of people will still be using Internet Explorer 8.

Re:So it's like Python 3 (2)

dririan (1131339) | about 2 years ago | (#40642673)

some Python environments (such as Windows) can't easily have multiple versions installed side-by-side

The Python installers on Windows install to (by default) C:\Python$MAJOR$MINOR (Python 2.7 installs to C:\Python27, Python 3.2 installs to C:\Python32). For scripts that require a certain version of Python, you may have to open it with the proper version yourself, because (obviously) .py files can only be associated with one program at a time. But for scripts made to be run by end-users, (assuming they don't ship their own Python runtime in the first place) a simple EXE wrapper can use the right interpreter. What part of this isn't easy?

Also, many developers make things compatible with both, which is made much easier with 2to3 [python.org] . Quite a few setup.py scripts use 2to3 automatically even, to be compatible with both using the normal python setup.py install.

EXE wrappers and third-party libraries (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40643183)

But for scripts made to be run by end-users, (assuming they don't ship their own Python runtime in the first place) a simple EXE wrapper can use the right interpreter. What part of this isn't easy?

That depends. Is there an automated tool to create and deploy such EXE wrappers yet?

Also, many developers make things compatible with both, which is made much easier with 2to3

And harder when your program relies on third-party libraries that have not yet been ported to 3.

Re:So it's like Python 3 (1)

the_demiurge (26115) | about 2 years ago | (#40642761)

No, adoption of Python 3 is limited by library support, not install base. Libraries need to be rewritten for Python 3 and some major ones (e.g. Django) are not yet ready. In this case, jQuery 1.9 and 2.0 will have the same API, but 2.0 will not work on older versions of IE in order to optimize for speed. Your comment about Windows XP is apt; this is akin to software dropping support for older OS versions.

Too soon (2)

knetcomp (1611179) | about 2 years ago | (#40642313)

I hate old IE versions as much as every other web developer, but I don't think this is the right way to go yet. One of the main reasons most developers love jQuery is because it allows them to forget about IE quirks and lack of compliance, and just write code. I think it would be better if they continued to support IE in their main branch, but also offer a "lite" version without IE support.

Re:Too soon (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40642833)

I hate old IE versions as much as every other web developer, but I don't think this is the right way to go yet. One of the main reasons most developers love jQuery is because it allows them to forget about IE quirks and lack of compliance, and just write code. I think it would be better if they continued to support IE in their main branch, but also offer a "lite" version without IE support.

Knet, why don't you see 16 bit Windows 3.x apps anymore? Why did windows95 not fail? Why did XP not fail?

The answer is developers said enough is enough and stopped porting to ancient standards. XP should have died years ago and IE 6 will keep staying as long as people think their platforms are fine. Look it runs everything!

Corporations and cheapskates are setting the standard locked forever and IE 8 is 3 years old. But it is what IE 6 should have been and was still far behind. It is time to move on and I am not saying this for the sake of change for something that works.

Mobile devices are demanding HTML 5 and CSS 3 with JIT javascript engines. This legacy shit is a pain in the ass and moves the external costs to the developers. Maybe if internet growth was still desktop oriented but its not. It is a pain to write 2 different websites.Worse Windows 7 comes with IE 8 so these users who do leave XP by 2014 will probably lock their corporate desktops to it until 2020 while we STILL WAIT for iphone 2007 functionality. That is ridiculous.

Re:Too soon (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#40643401)

I think it would be better if they continued to support IE in their main branch, but also offer a "lite" version without IE support.

They did just that. The "lite" version is called 1.9, the full one is called 2.0.

Should Firefox below 10.0 as well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642315)

Since 10.0 is the ESR that is the lowest supported baseline now even though it is only supposed to be used in corporations. Too many people still using the unsupported 3.6 release and below. Getting major web toolkits to drop it will provide a force to push people up to date. Then when ESR 17 and 24 come out do the same.

Unfortuatley IE 8 will be here for a while. Purely because Microsoft won't give anything above it for XP. XP is here to stay for a long time despite being "officially" dropped in 2014. Yes you can install other browser on XP but not in corporate controlled environments.

Re:Should Firefox below 10.0 as well. (1)

furbearntrout (1036146) | about 2 years ago | (#40643351)

IE 8 still uses the legacy JavaScript API and DOM. Cutting 6 and 7 wouldn't do much.

Missing the point (4, Informative)

bobetov (448774) | about 2 years ago | (#40642417)

All, one of the big reasons for this move is to provide a cleaner, smaller, faster version of jQuery to apps dedicated to a given platform, such as iOS apps running as HTML5 shells. These applications know their "browser" environment, and thus can benefit from lack of IE support with no cost in terms of audience size.

No one who has a general-public website should use 2.0 for years to come, but if you're developing a quickie Android app, or one of the dozen or so javascript-based desktop shells, etc, then this move is for you.

IE6 and 7? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642421)

Find, finally kill the bastards. But 8?! This is the last IE available for XP, which is still widely used in companys....

Good thing (2)

mpol (719243) | about 2 years ago | (#40642429)

I think it's a good thing. It might even be better if first IE6 and IE7 support was dropped, and IE8 support later, but that might be a lot of work.

I axpect that for the first few years jQuery 1.9 will be the most used version, but you can afcourse load jQuery 2.0 on newer browsers, and only load 1.9 with conditional comments.

I'm wondering how the big CMSs will handle this. Will Wordpress come with 2 versions for a few years?

Re:Good thing (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#40642595)

More than likely, it's the same code for IE6/7/8 that they're dropping. If you leave it for 8, you may as well leave 6 and 7, because you don't gain much.

Re:Good thing (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40642877)

Too bad I am working on a corporate oriented site. I can imagine IE 6 and 7 will be over 50% usage by the biggest customers who spend the most, even if they are a small minority overall.

I should not have to be reading books on IE 6 hacks in 2012.

Re:Good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643411)

I have to support a lot for a gov site. I don't know what your corporate policy may be, but clients start getting /really/ flustered when I show them the pricing structure for IE support...

I'm willing to go back to IE5, but nobody's ever taken me up on what that would cost. IE7 is an extra 20% on /all/ development costs (plus features being removed or replaced with crippleware) and IE6 is 50% beyond that.

Some of those numbers are to keep up with training on new technologies while having to support relics.

Now, there's a lot of infrastructure and systems in place to try to make this work -- but it's all stuff that takes real time for me to learn, write up, troubleshoot. It slows down debugging, makes the libraries slower, and basically results in horribly 'forked' applications. Or flash.

I realize a boss is a boss is a boss and can say anything they want. But have you tried giving yours an itemized timesheet where they see that "IE6 support constitutes 35% of the total cost of the project" ? Or that "making this little circle draw right here in IE7 actually slows the application by 5000%, and while you can fix it, the resulting fork has tripled your code base and made your 5 minute test suite take an hour?

At a certain point, your /boss/ will start billing IT for refusing to install firefox or chrome, even if it's just for your web app.

At an old job our web app actually got people off of IE5 when the CEO of a fortune 500 dragged their CIO into their office and told them to find a way to upgrade, get firefox installed for an entire department, or resign. Now, that company didn't bill extra for old support (they should have). We just didn't have the resources to get our application working in IE5 (or I wasn't good enough, same thing).

The thing is, your time is probably cheaper than those desktop upgrades. Because as an employee, they think of you as a black-box that gets-the-job-done-per-month. You need to present IE6 (and 7, and 8, and probably 9 for the lack of webgl) as an unecessary operational expense. Just like some apocryphal mainframes in a modern bank where 100 meg hard drives cost thousands to replace, but they still need that old COBOL reporting system from the 60's... IE6 is a liability and a threat to your mission success.

Re:Good thing (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40642985)

Issue I have with conditional comments is the bloated javascript libraries are still loaded and now they are bloated by 2x, even if they are ignored by the browser. IE 6 crashes with too much javascript.

For example in IE 6 I can load msnbc.com fine and it still is compatible. But it will freeze up randomly when these annoying social media scripts start up. I have to alt tab and kill it and use a custom hosts file for it to even load half the time.

The costs add up with ISPs now putting in caps and raising bandwidth rates as their competitors die off. 2 megs a view is very expensive and not friendly to those still on dial up vs half that without jquery ... especially 2 jqueries loading up.

So in essence I am in favor of 2.0 but will not use it for awhile for these reasons. If old IE finally dies out by 2014 then I will upgrade. I have a feeling the corporations are terrified of new browsers after IE 6 hell and will stay with 8 until 2020 until developers stop supporting IE 8. It is already becoming the new IE 6 of this decade and MS now has IE on an annual release trek so IE 18 will be out by then.

Dojo Toolkit (1)

MatrixCubed (583402) | about 2 years ago | (#40642489)

Another reason why Dojo Toolkit [dojotoolkit.org] is more attractive than jQuery. Clients don't care that the JS executes however many milliseconds faster, and they also don't care that the developers have an easier time not supporting older browsers.

What they do care about is stuff that "just works", and being able to add new features at the speed of *click*. Like any tool, if it hinders you from delivering either of these, it's fit for the trip out behind the woodshed.

I'd like to hear comments from other toolkit devs (Sencha, YUI, etc).

Re:Dojo Toolkit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642613)

I see all toolkits as crutches for people who can't be bothered to learn Javascript. The resulting code from using one of those toolkits also makes it impossible for someone who knows Javascript to debug the toolkit shit-looking code.

Re:Dojo Toolkit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642699)

That is how I feel about programming C and openssl, libjpeg, X11, tcl, libogg, etc.. For some reason, though, I never seem to be able to get much done.

Re:Dojo Toolkit (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#40643085)

Yawn. Why is it that nerds who generally hate typing are so hung up on reinventing the wheel all the time just to meet some meaningless code purity standard. You might not have deadlines but I do and anything that speeds my work up is a good thing. Shit code in pure Javascript abounds; JQuery has nothing to do with the quality of the developer.

Re:Dojo Toolkit (2)

steveb3210 (962811) | about 2 years ago | (#40643161)

Riight..

Because looking at code littered with var e = document.getElementById('stuff'); is just so much more elegant and non-shit-looking than $('#stuff')..

This won't really affect anything. (2, Insightful)

Kate6 (895650) | about 2 years ago | (#40642509)

"Full API compatibility" means the same identical code should be able to work with the slower-performing version 1.9 on legacy IE browsers *and* with the more optimized version 2 on IE9 and standards compliant browsers.

All you need is some back-end code to examine the user's browser's "useragent" string and figure out which version of jQuery to serve.

<?php
preg_match( '/MSIE ([0-9\.]+)/', $_SERVER[ 'HTTP_USER_AGENT' ], $matches );
if ( ( count( $matches ) == 2 ) && ( floatval( $matches[ 1 ] ) < 9.0 ) )
     echo "<script type='text/javascript' src='jQuery-1.9.min.js'></script>";
else
     echo "<script type='text/javascript' src='jQuery-2.0.min.js'></script>";
?>

Re:This won't really affect anything. (1)

flux (5274) | about 2 years ago | (#40642605)

What's the point in using 2.0 in the first place if 1.9 will do? Obviously 2.0 will have some functionality or fixes 1.9 won't. If you really want to do what you suggest, you would still have two code paths in your system, one for 2.0 and one for 1.9 (or possibly one for 2.0 and then gracefully degrade when there is no 2.0).

Re:This won't really affect anything. (1)

Kate6 (895650) | about 2 years ago | (#40642687)

RTFA.

2.0 will implement the same features as 1.9 but in more optimized ways, by relying on browser features not available in legacy versions of IE.  The whole point of having a standardized API is that you can provide different implementations of that API.

Re:This won't really affect anything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642959)

What's the point in using 2.0 in the first place if 1.9 will do? Obviously 2.0 will have some functionality or fixes 1.9 won't. If you really want to do what you suggest, you would still have two code paths in your system, one for 2.0 and one for 1.9 (or possibly one for 2.0 and then gracefully degrade when there is no 2.0).

Presented to you in glorious PSEUDOCODE!!!

2.0:

function doSomeStandardThing()
{
        someStandardAction();
}

Compare to, in 1.9:

function doSomeStandardThing()
{
        if(IE6)
        {
                doSomeNonstandardIEBullshit();
        }
        else if(IE7)
        {
                doSomeDifferentNonstandardIEBullshit();
        }
        else if(IE8)
        {
                goodLordDoWeSeriouslyHaveToDoMoreNonstandardBullshitForIE();
        }
        else
        {
                someStandardAction();
        }
}

Now, multiply that by every point at which IE pulls something from way the hell out in left field to do something everyone else agreed on doing a single, different way, and you'll quickly see that 2.0 will run faster without having to make all these extra checks, and will be smaller without having to carry all the extra weight of special magical IE nonsense around.

Re:This won't really affect anything. (1)

Kate6 (895650) | about 2 years ago | (#40643033)

It's not just that 2.0 won't need to check which hacks are needed to support all the different weirdness of different legacy versions of IE...  It's also that HTML5 has a lot of features that can make much of jQuery's functionality much simpler, and HTML5 isn't really IN IE8 and older.

Re:This won't really affect anything. (2)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#40643021)

This is the web we're talking about. Especially with so many people on mobiles these days, bandwidth is limited so size matters. Even is 2.0 offers exactly the same features as 1.9, 2.0 will be a heck of a lot smaller, meaning faster downloading, faster loading, faster parsing. Especially on phones, that's not just a nice thing to have, it's a necessity.

Re:This won't really affect anything. (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#40643119)

Speed.

Re:This won't really affect anything. (1)

furbearntrout (1036146) | about 2 years ago | (#40643325)

IIRC, the code path for 1.9 will be longer and slower, but it won't any additional code in your application.

Re:This won't really affect anything. (1)

steveb3210 (962811) | about 2 years ago | (#40643179)

echo + html tags is a huge fail...

Re:This won't really affect anything. (1)

Kate6 (895650) | about 2 years ago | (#40643283)

Oh who the heck cares?  My point is that jQuery isn't actually dropping support for legacy versions of IE -- they're just creating a more optimal version of their library for newer browsers.  And I was trying to keep my code example reasonably clear and simple.

By all means, though, go ahead and start a whole sub-thread about what the most optimal way to do the browser detection would be.  There seems to be a lot of commenters who feel it ought to be done using IE conditional comments.

Re:This won't really affect anything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643291)

Nobody cares.

Conditional Comments are your friend... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642647)

Remember that IE can be used in Conditional comments

that is

<!-- if IE lt 9 ->
jquery 1.9
< endif -->

So use both, that's why there's API parity.

Dropping IE8 support at this time is unacceptable (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#40642803)

I don't have any problem with dropping support for IE6 and IE7. These should have been phased out years ago, and their only reasonable present-day use is not as web browsers, but as legacy applications platforms for badly coded ActiveX apps.

But IE8? For users with Windows XP, this is as high as you can go. IE9 is not supported. And WinXP continues to be supported by Microsoft through the end of 2014, and is still in very widespread use among businesses, and to a lesser but still significant extent among home users.

I wish IE8 would go away (or more specifically, that Microsoft would take the time to backport IE9 to WinXP). Its continued persistence means a lot of css3pie hacks in the website I maintain, which are necessary to get rounded corners and drop shadows in this outdated browser. But it won't go away just because Google wants it to. And saying to use Firefox or Chrome instead of IE is not going to fly in most workplaces, which rely heavily on Internet Explorer's integration with Active Directory and its support for Group Policy. As far behind as IE falls in other categories, no third-party browser matches its abilities on these vital business fronts.

Re:Dropping IE8 support at this time is unacceptab (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#40642957)

Workplaces should actually be the least problematic. You can dictate what version of IE people are using, and at this point any responsible IT department REALLY should have a migration plan in place for getting rid of any legacy XP boxes.

Heck, if a workplace hasn't already moved to 7 by now - they've got bigger issues than worrying about jQuery.

You didn't even read the whole summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643027)

Their 1.9 branch will continue to support IE8 at least as long as Microsoft does.

Re:Dropping IE8 support at this time is unacceptab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643045)

JQuery 2.0 won't see really widespread use on the 'desktop' web until the userbase has largely moved away from XP. In the mobile world, though, we are grateful for any speed boost, so it'll build up a head of steam there for awhile.

This isn't anti-MS flamewar crap. JQuery is fully embraced by Microsoft, and is basically their ordained way of doing things in ASP.net MVC.

If JQ2.0 has major features that developers really want/need, I would expect that MSFT would maintain their own fork for older versions of IE.

Hell, if it's call compatible with 1.9, a few simple lines of javascript should be sufficient to load the right library for the browser. Browser detection in javascript is an ugly hack, but it'd be a workaround, at least.

Or you could use chormeframe, but that's an even uglier hack, IMO.

Version numbers causing confusion (1)

dnwheeler (443747) | about 2 years ago | (#40642897)

I think the primary cause of the confusion is that there are two version numbers. It sounds like the "new" version is dropping IE6-8 support when, in fact, both 1.9 and 2.0 are "new" versions. It would have been better if they shared a version number with some sort of modifier:

2.0 - 2.0 without legacy support
2.0L - 2.0 with legacy support (IE6-8)

Simply changing the version number makes the difference clear while mitigating the worry/panic.

I don't use jQuery, here's why (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642915)

I don't use jQuery,

Now I have nothing but love for people want to build things that make it "Easier" and "Faster" for everyone, but listen to me for a sec:
Drivers
|
Windows-Linux-MacOS
|
Abstraction Layers over the OS, Firefox, Chrome
|
Javascript API's (DOM, SVG, WebGL, Web Audio, etc)
|
Javascript Libraries

There's already three levels of ... cruft... if you will. This is the type of code bloat that plagues Perl (everytime you update Perl, you have to go recompile every framework, like DBI/DBD, when you have hundreds of these things, you may as well just cut them all out and roll your own)

In my opinion there is no point to using jQuery, it doesn't add anything that you can't do without it. 50% of the time when I try to look up how to do something in javascript, I get some "simple javascript" that's actually jquery code. Stop it. If you want to use jQuery, please understand the underlying code, and don't simply assume that what you write is efficient. jQuery is a huge source of code bloat, where someone wants something that can be written in two likes of javascript, but they instead include a 250KB javascript library to do it.

If the code you write will be faster and more compact, using jquery, by all means go ahead. But if you're trying to do something that is already stupidly simple to do, then please stop and think about it. For example, writing a TTS engine or NES emulator, using jQuery, is just a bad idea. There is no opportunity to write assembler in interpreted languages. Maybe that needs to change. Maybe more lower-level API's do need to be exposed through Javascript (OpenCL/DSP, OpenGL shaders, etc) maybe Javascript needs an opcode cache like PHP, where frequently used script hashes (eg jQuery) can remain in a compiled state in the browser, thus making it beneficial to use jQuery over rolling your own code all the time.

Re:I don't use jQuery, here's why (1)

steveb3210 (962811) | about 2 years ago | (#40643223)

If by 250k you mean 80k, then sure..

-rw-r--r-- 1 xxxxx staff 85260 Apr 30 10:28 jquery-1.5.1.min.js

If you're building any sort of complicated website these days, you will use alot of jQuery.. Do you really want to go write a custom ajax handler? why bother..

Plus, using jQuery allows you to leverage tons of other pre-written libraries which were all written on top of jQuery and will avoid alot of cross-browser bugs and repeated code..

Dewey (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 2 years ago | (#40642925)

In the news from 2013: jQuery adopts the Dewey-decimal numbering system for its versions. The next version will be 1.9.3.2.

Legacy Branching? (2)

kiehlster (844523) | about 2 years ago | (#40643007)

Why don't we manage these APIs in a manner like version controls? Maintain a 'core' branch that's compatible with the latest browsers and then have additional 'legacy' branches that break off whenever a browser version is deprecated. I know your first instinct is to argue, "Just install multiple versions of the API," but why not make the API a repository in and of itself? And for those people who want every ounce of speed out of their API, you can just offer a 'core' version of the API that only supports the latest browsers and doesn't include the legacy branches.

jQuery freezes at 1.9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643017)

And so having completed a library that addresses the weaknesses and incompatibilities it seeks to address, jQuery will reach it's ultimate version at 1.9. jQuery 2.0 won't be very popular for years.

Remember, IE 7 is old, but people are buying computers less frequently, so I don't think it's going away so quickly. It is going to be REALLY hard to kill Windows XP. And so it will be really hard to get everyone onto IE9.

Anyway, I think the future browsers will just be made with jQuery in mind. They'll probably all run a version of the jQuery selector natively. I think future browsers will integrate jQuery away.

Re:jQuery freezes at 1.9 (1)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#40643103)

Windows XP doesn't have to die for IE8 to go away. Every other browsers' latest version runs great on XP.

jQuery native support (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#40643029)

This is a bit off of the main topic... but any idea why none of the browser vendors have implemented native support for jQuery in their JavaScript engines? It seems to me that this would be an easy way to improve performance, considering how many websites use it, and considering that implementing native support for its API would remove the need to go through 2 layers of interpreters.

THANK GOD! MAYBE THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40643039)

I'm having a "Gangs of New York" moment here yall.

"The Earth turns, but we don't feel it move. And one night you look up. One spark, and the sky's on fire."

-Amsterdam Vallon

hmm (1)

buddyglass (925859) | about 2 years ago | (#40643281)

Maybe they were inspired by Google, which declared Chrome 20 would only support only OS X 10.6+, i.e. 80-85% of Mac users.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>