|
When it came out, Chrome was fast
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Soricidus posted:As shown in the thread earlier the browser is instructed to print. Is the computer doing A when instructed to do A an unusual thing outside the JavaScript world? That is some fine burying the lede here. The question should be "why is a computer instructed to print to paper when you want it to round a loving number.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 11:35
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:As shown in the thread earlier the browser is instructed to print. Is the computer doing A when instructed to do A an unusual thing outside the JavaScript world? this is a very confusing post
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
It’s a quote from the github thread where someone is inexplicably defending the terrible javascript scoping rules that cause the bug
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Someone added debugging code to the round function. This person added print("some debugging") when they meant to add console.log("some debugging"). The print built-in in Javascript attempts to send the page to the printer. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
The real key points are - They added this to their actual production website, not a private dev instance - They never actually tested the code path they added the debug logging to before shipping it
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
I like how dozens and dozens of people post to confirm that it's happening for them as well, like it's the 100th person to post confirming something on GitHub that will change someone's mind as to whether to work on it or whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I literally moved over from Firefox to Chrome because the former would eat up my old laptop's memory to the point I couldn't really use it consistently even with script blockers, but sure, that wasn't the issue, it was all Google marketing, it's why I'm using Edge on all my Windows 10 machines. Same, also I was still riding the yay Gmail is great, Google does no evil wave back when it was released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
Jabor posted:The real key points are They might not have had a printer setup
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
The biggest revolutionary thing that Chrome did when it was new was run each tab in a separate process so that a hang or exception in one tab didn’t kill everything you had open. Firefox and IE didn’t do that at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
IE8 did had multi process browsing, which was before chrome was released, not that it matters or that anyone cares
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Jabor posted:The real key points are "this" is pretty fucky in JS, isn't it? I don't know much about the language, but is it possible that a code change somewhere else in the project altered the context in that logging function? this.print() is calling window.print() now but perhaps it was intended to be someobject.print().
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:"this" is pretty fucky in JS, isn't it? I don't know much about the language, but is it possible that a code change somewhere else in the project altered the context in that logging function? this.print() is calling window.print() now but perhaps it was intended to be someobject.print(). But there isn't any implicit "this" in JS as far as I know. An identifier that isn't in local scope (declared by "var", "let", or "function") is looked up in the global scope, which usually is the "window" object.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
From the GitHub thread they had print() when they should’ve had Module.print()
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Hammerite posted:I like how dozens and dozens of people post to confirm that it's happening for them as well, like it's the 100th person to post confirming something on GitHub that will change someone's mind as to whether to work on it or whatnot. Welcome to every issue page with any sort of profile on a popular package ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Xarn posted:That is some fine burying the lede here. The question should be "why is a computer instructed to print to paper when you want it to round a loving number. The round function literally calls print. It's not burying anything. This is also not javascripts round.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Janitor Prime posted:They might not have had a printer setup The print dialog would still show. I wonder if they test in a headless environment that doesn't have said dialog.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
necrotic posted:The round function literally calls print. It's not burying anything. Yes, but all your saying is “there’s a rational explanation for this bug.” That’s true of all bugs, but they’re still bugs. The computer does not need an advocate!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
qsvui posted:What exactly did Chrome do much better than Firefox at the time? Both of them supported tabs and extensions, I don't remember anything that stood out about Chrome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Welcome to every issue page with any sort of profile on a popular package ever. Confirming this issue on slightly popular packages as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Dross posted:The biggest revolutionary thing that Chrome did when it was new was run each tab in a separate process so that a hang or exception in one tab didn’t kill everything you had open. Firefox and IE didn’t do that at the time. Now that every major browser is Webkit-based it's kind of a moot point anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
In addition to what everyone else has said, IIRC Chrome didn't require admin privileges to install and basically installed in one click. It also never hassled you to update or anything. In the days where those were revolutionary ideas, it was a really nice piece of software.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Ola posted:Confirming this issue on slightly popular packages as well. I feel like its gotten better on github since the addition of thumbs up thingamabobs. Maybe I'm just deluding myself though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I feel like its gotten better on github since the addition of thumbs up thingamabobs. I still see occasional "+1" comments but they usually get a lot of thumbs downs and no other engagement. So yeah, definitely better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
SupSuper posted:did they get the non-technical folk by making all their sites worse on non-Chrome browsers. Holy poo poo. Man, Microsoft 2.0 in more ways than I realized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Putting search in the URL bar was revolutionary. I think Firefox had that before Chrome came out
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
xtal posted:I think Firefox had that before Chrome came out There were extensions that did it but it wasn't in vanilla firefox until after chrome got popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
I liked old Opera back in the day for having built-in ad blocking. But people started arguing browsers have to be lean and tiny and ad blocking isn't a core feature so move it to a plugin. I still think ad blocking is a core feature needed to visit a majority of the web.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I liked old Opera back in the day for having built-in ad blocking. I don't think Google agrees with you (or Apple).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
Brave has builtin adblock, but Brave is garbage for other reasons. They also wrote their adblock code in Rust so it's way faster and more memory-efficient.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
xtal posted:Brave has builtin adblock, but Brave is garbage for other reasons. They also wrote their adblock code in Rust so it's way faster and more memory-efficient. Why is it garbage?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Why is it garbage? Brendan Eich (founder/CEO) was supporting anti-gay legislation. I used Brave for a while last year, but then stopped because I don't want to support him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
lobsterminator posted:Brendan Eich (founder/CEO) was supporting anti-gay legislation. I used Brave for a while last year, but then stopped because I don't want to support him. Holy yikes!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
They also replace ads blocked with ones from their own network.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
They also did a big thing about "want to support content creators? Click this button with a picture of the person's face on it and give us money! we haven't actually talked to the person in question though, and we probably won't be giving them any of the money you give us either"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
I entirely support people boycotting Brendan Eich, but my problem with Brave is that it's an adblocker that replaces ads with their own ads. They have had a few different plans for how to get the money back to the creators, sort of like a browser-integrated Flattr. This page has backstory plus a link to more recent info at the top: https://www.brave.com/about_ad_replacement.html. The long-term goal of Brave is to replace the advertising model on the Web with their cryptocurrency, https://basicattentiontoken.org/. xtal fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Jul 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
This deserves its own coding horror post:quote:Basic Attention Token radically improves the efficiency of digital advertising by creating a new token that can be exchanged between publishers, advertisers, and users. It all happens on the Ethereum blockchain. quote:The Brave browser knows where users spend their time, making it the perfect tool to calculate and reward publishers with BATs. This service creates a transparent and efficient Blockchain-based digital advertising market. Publishers receive more revenue because middlemen and fraud are reduced. Users opt-in to an inclusive and rewarding private ad experience. And advertisers get better data on their spending. It would be more fair to say that Brave is a browser with built-in advertising than a browser with built-in adblocking. xtal fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jul 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:There were extensions that did it but it wasn't in vanilla firefox until after chrome got popular. Nope, It was added in Firefox 3, quite some time before Chrome was officially released. tankadillo posted:In addition to what everyone else has said, IIRC Chrome didn't require admin privileges to install and basically installed in one click. It also never hassled you to update or anything. In the days where those were revolutionary ideas, it was a really nice piece of software. Also it was easy to deploy in enterprise environments while Mozilla didn't even attempt to support enterprises.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Yeah, no matter what you think of Eich (garbage), the fact that Brave replaces ads with their own under the guise of "giving money to the content creators" (that we have not talked with about anything and they should be glad we even show their content) should be enough to avoid using it. e: unless you are Subjunctive, who trusts its technical team just like he trusts Facebook to treat your data properly 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
"Bitcoin but for privacy violation and marketing" is genius because anybody that falls for it is hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 16:11
|
|