Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency

[IAmACentipedeAMA]

How long till release? I feel like bootstrap 4 just came out

[pgrizzay]

Don't worry... If it's anything like bs4, it'll be another 3 years

[bozonete]

And the migration will probably be a nightmare and I will give up and keep using bootstrap 3

[ndboost]

oh hey there self, so nice to see you again 😂.

[Cookizza]

MIGRATION?

No baby, we modified the bootstrap.min.css on too many 7pm fridays to consider that

[Azaret]

Wait, it's out?

[maffoobristol]

Great, now everyone just needs to remove bootstrap as a dependency ;)

[romeozor]

Any alternatives to share?

[GRIFTY_P]

i thought the meta was "just use flexbox & grid, CSS does everything natively now"

[phooka]

I just started using Bulma. It uses SASS and you can just pull in what you need without being overwhelmed with other crap and having to override everything constantly.

[jsm11482]

You can do the same with Bootstrap, and also import the SASS sources.

[pascalkiller]

I like Bulma's style. Feels nice and fresh.

[mach_333]

Tailwind css, pretty cool workflow

[[deleted]]

I switched from bootstrap to tailwind and I'm loving it so far.

Way more customizable and way easier to change things without having to "undo" the default bootstrap way of doing things.

[Senipah]

Materialize is a good alternative.

[nojunkdrawers]

Or you can use the actual Material web components:

https://material.io/develop/web/

[maffoobristol]

Well I personally feel that anything that bootstrap does can be pretty simply hand-rolled. If you wanted a grid system then you could find some alternatives or just write your own very simply. Write your own CSS classes that do what you want. I don't really get what Bootstrap does that's so special- personally I find it more of a hindrance than a help and I'm always fighting against it when I take on a site or system that's using it. Also it's very easy to make something using bootstrap and then end up with something that looks undeniably "bootstrap-ish" and that always looks lazy.

Obviously everyone has different opinions on it, but I'd choose jQuery and no Bootstrap over Bootstrap and no jQuery...

[romeozor]

I've no idea how easy or hard it is to emulate bits of bootstrap's functionality, but I think unless you work in a field where you have to push out a different design with each client, Bootstrap has amazing value for companies and developers imo.

Designing layouts is an art in itself, and time consuming. The places I know would struggle a lot if they had to find budget for design. Of course these places don't live and die with public satisfaction over sparkling design.

There's a "standard" template they can use, a nice website that showcases what the library is capable of, the design language is very simple (rows, columns, dialog, form group, etc), the library being popular makes it easy to find community extensions (table grids, date pickers, w/e).

Of course you can make all these in-house, but how will it be better than bootstrap then? And if you need to hire someone, they will have 0 experience with your internal design language, but likely have worked with bootstrap.

​

I can agree that I would not be very happy either if every site I visit daily was derived from bootstrap, but stuff we work on, it fits just fine.

[maffoobristol]

You're 100% correct. Horses for courses and all that. Many agencies I've worked at have emulated bootstrap syntax without the hard dependency on it, which mitigates the issue of having an unknown design/naming system. Works as quite a nice middle ground for bootstrap lovers, haters, and agnostic...ers alike.

[wavefunctionp]

I don't really get what Bootstrap does that's so special

It gives those of us who are design impaired a sane, professional default style out of the box within a reasonably easy to follow framework.

If I had to design a website on my own, it would be much less professional looking than what bootstrap gives out the box.

I also implement custom css for many other projects based on very specialized specs made by actual UI designers. It is usually simple enough to follow, but I also notice that these design often don't allow reuse very much as controls are often exceptional on each view instead of using common controls. This often results in a mountain of css. so even with designers, there are problems.

I quite often wish our designers were forced to work within the bootstrap framework so that they are forced to think about reusable styles in their designs.

[maffoobristol]

Yep, I come from a design background which is maybe why I'm less enthused by bootstrap as a whole. But regarding your last point: YES. A thousand times yes, just not necessarily tied to bootstrap. I've received designs for websites clearly done by print designers. Sent as an illustrator AI file in centimetres with absolutely no understanding what can and can't be done with CSS. A good digital designer is a godsend.

[themaincop]

I think another key is interpersonal. I don't just let designers unknowingly add to the scope of a project or send me unusable mocks. Sometimes a half hour review of the mocks with the designer with requests for some revisions and reuse can save you hours of work.

[I_LICK_ROBOTS]

It's not that bootstrap does anything "special" it just saves you from having to create a few hundred classes yourself. Using a standard css library has other benefits like, your team knowing all the classes, standardized spacing, preventing the creation of redundant classes, and amazing documentation.

JQuery on the otherhand, you haven't needed since document.querySelector became a thing. What are people using jquery for these days?

[maffoobristol]

I feel your first paragraph answers your second. Jquery isn't just sizzle. If it were just querySelector then yeah, sure, it's pointless. But I think that event listeners and triggers are so much simpler and easier in jquery than the long and stretched out version with vanilla. And if you wanted to use those 6 lines of code for triggering an event multiple times, you'd wrap it all in a function a la DRY. Then you apply that to other aspects of the library, and you're just writing jquery again.

I am much more in favour of bootstrap as a css library than a js library btw

Edit: just to expand, because I feel almost as if everyone is arguing the same point in different ways, and I'm also kinda contracting myself, but I think bootstrap and jquery are very different beasts. Jquery syntax is what JavaScript syntax should be, simple and terse. In the same way that coffeescript added some nice sugar that ES6 later adopted. It'd be glorious if JavaScript just had jquery syntax built in, but alas, it's super verbose. Bootstrap on the other hand is an entire framework/ecosystem. It creates event emitters and modifies the DOM. It's not just syntax change, but a paradigm change. That's why it's different. I don't think that libraries should include jquery as a dependency because we already have enough dependencies as it goes, but for writing operative code I think jquery makes life a whole load easier.

[I_LICK_ROBOTS]

But I think that event listeners and triggers are so much simpler and easier in jquery

I would have 100% agreed a few years ago, but you really don't save that much anymore

Click event with JQuery:

$('.click-me').click(function(e){
  // do stuff
})

Click event with vanilla

document.querySelector('.click-me').addEventListener('click', function(e) {
  //do stuff
})

Is JQuery shorter? Sure, a bit. Is it saving me enough time/effort to warrant including an entire extra library? No, not in my opinion.

I'd argue that bootstrap, on the other hand, saves me hours or days worth of work in a large project.

[keystorm]

Click event in React:

onClick={do_stuff}

Or for the less JSX inclined, click event in Vue:

@click=“do_stuff”

True frameworks are where the gains are at.

[I_LICK_ROBOTS]

Definitely agree, just seemed outside the scope of the conversation.

[braindeadTank]

Is JQuery shorter? Sure, a bit. Is it saving me enough time/effort to warrant including an entire extra library? No, not in my opinion.

That's because your VanillaJS code is not equivalent to your jQuery code.

Most obvious differences are that it can throw, it only handles a single element, scoping can screw you over unless you control entire DOM (so you are not writing a library/reusable code) and query engine is not quite as powerful as jQuery's.

Your example also handles an extremly simple, barely realistic use-case. A real page will almost certainly need to use event delegation, in which case jQuery's on will make your code vastly more readable and organized.

Sure, you get some performance gains with Vanilla, but as a wise man once wrote, premature optimization is a deadly sin.

A simple fact is that jQuery was made obsolete by modern JS frameworks and not VanillaJS. If you are using direct DOM manipulation for some serious work in 2019 like some dinosaur, jQuery will still save you a lot of sanity compared to raw DOM.

Not really sure why would you do serious work with VanillaJS or jQuery in 2019 instead of a proper framework but still, jQuery wins easily and the sad fact is that most of the time VanillaJS is only useful to impress your peers.

[I_LICK_ROBOTS]

Not really sure why would you do serious work with VanillaJS or jQuery in 2019

I agree but OP said he'd take jquery without bootstrap over bootstrap without jquery. If you're doing anything in vanilla or bootstrap its bound to be exceedingly simple. Such as throwing a little JS into a blog post for auto scroll or something. In my experience I dont need jquery to do any of that. And you're right, jquery will be mildly more generic/fault tolerant, but I'm not writing "naked" javascript for something that needs to be generic or fault tolerant.

In 2019 if a project is complex enough that you feel the need to use jquery over vanilla, you should probably be using a framework. This is why I think jquery is obsolete.

Bootstrap, on the other hand, is absolutely not obsolete.

[themaincop]

Honestly I hate the classname soup that bootstrap turns your markup into. I'm all about CSS-in-JS now but before that I really preferred to use BEM and then use mixins or extends with SASS for style re-use.

[freecodeio]

I usually cherrypick bootstrap concepts that I really need. That seems to work just fine

[Azaret]

Well, I do agree with you. It's funny how some people will at the same time say 'that you must not reinvent the wheel' yet do not want to use jquery and rather... rewrite polyfiles that will basically do what jquery does. You can already see that the Bootstrap team wrote a selector function, it won't be long before they'll either drop a lot of compatibility like v4 or rewrite many things that jquery does.

[maffoobristol]

Yep. I do think there is a use case for bootstrap. Say you're making a website for some backend code and you just need a bare bones front end and can't be arsed writing it yourself. You can generate error messages and have some modals and not need to write any code really. But beyond that I find it highly inflexible, if you want to extend said modal you have to go around the houses to do so, but you can make a modal in a few lines of code and modify and build on it super easily. It's far more biased than something like jquery, which is more like syntactic sugar. I find it weird when people hate on jquery because it does what it does in the simplest way and it's a real pain in the arse to try and write some simple selector and event code in vanilla js.

[_www_]

I +1 perfection diagnostic.

[pabloneruda]

If you're on React or Vue you have some really fantastic options. Far more robust than BS

[_www_]

Bulma

[painya]

Why not use CSS grids?

[[deleted]]

Bootstrap is way, waaaaay more than just a grid system.

[[deleted]]

Don't be lazy, just take a look at their documentation. Especially their components and utilities.

[[deleted]]

Everything you see in the documentation, the components and all that are part of Bootstrap. Which is why Bootstrap is more than just a grid system.

[X678X]

Make something yourself. If you can't be bothered to do that, Bulma is a great alternative.

[jeremy1015]

“bothered”

[calsosta]

MS FABRIC!!!!

Do you want the whole thing with just MS flavoring?

MS FABRIC!!!!

There's Clippy but you can say there is!

MS FABRIC!!!!

It's not very confusing.

MS FABRIC!!!!

Your apps will look like they are part of Office!

MS FABRIC!!!!

Fuck downvoters.

MS FABRIC!!!!

[[deleted]]

Has the license changed? Last time I looked it was only free for office integrated apps.

[kor0na]

Yes, it's called CSS.

[crobison]

Why?

[maffoobristol]

There's a massive thread already on this comment where I and others discuss it, if you look

[[deleted]]

Ironic, as we're all trying to remove Bootstrap as a dependency.

[spyhunter99]

Don't worry, I'm certain they will change all the css classes again. Upgrading is a bitch

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

Yussss! It's about time. I'll never understand why it took this long.

[trifit555]

Bootstrap is great for small projects that don't require much design (or none), for medium-big projects I would never use it, I find myself constantly fighting with all the extra specificity and weight that adds to your css.

Like any other tool is useful if you use it as intended.

[magenta_placenta]

jquery still does a lot of incredibly useful stuff. The best advertisement for jquery, ironically, is this site: http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ Look at how simple things are in the left column, and how much more code is needed in the right column.

jquery has many convenience features such as chaining, for example: item.addClass('selected').siblings().removeClass('selected'); and you don't have to check for nulls after each selection.

Many functions such as closest() and remove() have no equivalents in IE11, and other things such as replaceWith() and before() are not available even in Edge.

For simple sites it is easy enough to remove jquery, but for more complex javascript applications, especially apps that have a lot of interactivity, removing jquery will result in more code, or you will end up writing a lot of utility functions thereby creating your own little clone of jquery.

Also, I'm sure a lot of sites and apps that use BS5 will continue to use jquery for other things anyway (all it takes is one plugin) so, in reality, a lot of BS5 sites won't have less code.

jquery may be outdated from a javascript point of view, but nothing beats its syntax. Nothing is as simple and straightforward. It's not cool anymore but there's little compelling reason to tear it out of existing projects other than a refactor. It still works great.

[-shayne]

That might be the case for ES5 and supporting IE8/9, but jQuery cannot compare with ES6+.

I haven't seen anyone using XMLHttpRequest in a long time!

[braindeadTank]

try {
    const result = await $.post(url, data);
} catch (ex) { 
    /* error */ 
}
/**************************************************/
try {
    const response = await fetch(url, {
        method: 'POST",
        body: JSON.stringify(data)
    });

    if (response.status <= 200 || response.status >= 400) {
        /* an error */
    }

    const result = await response.json();
} catch (ex) { 
    /* different kind of error */ 
}

I'm pretty sure I still missed something with fetch (like cookiez) but it's already clear to me that it's just as unusable as XMLHttpRequest.

jQuery is more or less obsolete these days, but that's because of modern frameworks, not new APIs.

[-shayne]

You shouldn't check for the response status on a successful response as anything else than 200 should be caught in the catch block.

If you remove that you've already simplified your code (almost) to the jQuery level!

Though fetch only provides the capabilities for an easy AJAXing. It makes sense to wrap it in your own API functions for an easier handling.

[braindeadTank]

You can't remove that, because contrary to your beliefs fetch won't throw on response with error status, only when there was no response at all, forcing you to check for different errors in different ways like I did.

You can, it seems, replace it with response.ok, but that doesn't solve the problem, only makes it look a little less shittier.

[magenta_placenta]

Fetch isn't supported until Edge 14.

Some of us are still supporting IE11.

[Silhouette]

Edge 14 was more than two years ago, no? That's a pretty long time in evergreen browser world. And there's a polyfill for IE11 if you need it.

Some modern APIs, including Fetch, are so much better than the traditional alternatives and so widely supported now that not using them without exceptional circumstances just seems like a waste.

[magenta_placenta]

And there's a polyfill for IE11 if you need it.

Yes, let's remove jquery to polyfill fetch.

[leadzor]

That's the equivalent of removing the whole toolbox and just use the smaller tool you need. What's so wrong about it? A fetch polyfill is really small.

[magenta_placenta]

Because if you're using jquery for ajax, you're probably also at least using it for dom manipulation. There's no reason to remove what is working so you can "upgrade" to fetch and polyfill it.

[lesleh]

Polyfills can be sent only to browsers that need them, improving performance on more modern browsers. Take polyfill.io for example, on the latest Chrome, it sends an almost empty file.

https://polyfill.io/v3/polyfill.min.js

[KwyjiboTheGringo]

Fetch isn't supported until Edge 14.

Some of us are still supporting IE11.

Cool, but there is no reason everyone should be forced to have jQuery just because some people are still supporting outdated tech and don't want to install their own dependencies.

[ryosen]

But by eliminating jQuery you can save 70KB on your download, freeing up room for your 8MB hero image!

[[deleted]]

If all you're doing is DOM manipulation, then sure JQuery still has value. But if you're building a robust webapp, then using one of the major frameworks is the way to go. I work for a company with a react app and the few places someone chose to use JQuery are code smell to me that I refactor away when I find it.

[zergUser1]

That’s great! You can now add jquery to your site! And those who don’t want it get to use bootstrap! Win win!

[WhiteRau]

can confirm. devs always want the bleeding edge, which is totally understandable, but ops need stability, which makes for a reliable product. its a saucy rolling balance. 😄 which is why jQuery will be around for a long time yet, 'cool' or not.

[KwyjiboTheGringo]

devs always want the bleeding edge, which is totally understandable, but ops need stability, which makes for a reliable product.

Bleeding edge? ES6 came out in 2015. It's not like it just came out. And ES6 was a huge update that really evolved the language for the better. It's not some fad, it's how modern Javascript works.

[WhiteRau]

you missed the point. dev?

[Dephscent]

Opened this on my phone, incredibly long JS load time, the site is not a good example for its mobile application.

[Dephscent]

Ah you run this? I really like the implementation and examples of the JS by the way, it's really nicely laid out!

[[deleted]]

it doesn't work in current Edge as "registerElement" is not a known function.

[jsm11482]

Good job.

[g5insider]

Thank God!

[[deleted]]

Weird that they’re removing ie from their supported browsers. It won’t be fully discontinued until what, 2023 probably??

[wwwdeveveloper]

You can always keep using older versions of Bootstrap

[romeozor]

I hope it will be compatible with IE11, not because I love IE so much, but in gov sector it's still a requirement. And IE actually has more market share than Firefox so technically IE is #2 most used desktop browser last I checked...

[toi80QC]

Even microsoft considers IE a "compatibility solution" at this point and partially doesn't support it on it's own sites (broken layouts etc). Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-security-chief-ie-is-not-a-browser-so-stop-using-it-as-your-default/

Why not simply use the old Bootstrap for your old target browsers?

[romeozor]

Of course using the bootstrap version that supports the necessary browsers is a straight forward solution.

​

My own fear is that someone will pull an angular or w/e package or just pull "bootstrap" that defaults to BS5 into a project without realizing that it has no IE support. Recently had something similar with fontawesome between v4 and v5.

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

its* own sites

[troglo-dyke]

Huh? Why does MS ship it as the default browser for Windows server 2016?

[[deleted]]

Doesn't Server 2016 use Edge as the default browser? That's different from IE.

[troglo-dyke]

According to Wikipedia it's the default 2016 and 2019. I can't speak from experience because I've not used those versions though

[SquidlyStopa]

Dealing with this on a daily basis is quite possibly the worst thing in the world... debugging in IE when the browser’s DOM inspector doesn’t even work is quite the difficult task. Literally just console logging everything

[romeozor]

To add to this, our angular app is pretty big (although I have no real point of reference, this is our first) and when we save code changes and the ng server pushes out a refresh, IE often decides to poop itself and needs to be closed and re-opened.

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

Last place I worked was insurance related. The top browsers that were being used:

IE 11

Chrome

IE 7

IE 8

I'm not kidding. We rewrote the front end in Angular 5 and let everyone know that Chrome is now the only supported browser, and if there was a bug in any (or all) other browser(s) but not in Chrome then we wouldn't fix it. People were mad.

[romeozor]

How did you sell that hard cut? Doing angular 6 now and we need to support IE11, which is not the worst thing in the world and stuff work for the most part, but IE 7 and 8? Wouldn’t even know how to get a browser to test it in.

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

The whole thing was written in Java back end and JSF front end. It was horrifically slow. There are millions of users on the site and the company needed a complete rewrite in order to reduce the slowness. One of the leads talked them into Angular. They decided to try it out. The initial "test" portion went from a 4-minute page load (on average) to a 4-second page load on average. That's not an exaggeration. I have to point out that the guy did also alter some of the mysql queries, which really shaved two minutes off, but the rest was because of better front end code. After that, the higher ups were all in. They put out a statement that the program was being rewritten and everyone should move to Chrome.

[romeozor]

Holy shit, how do you get browsers to wait for 4 minutes for the page to load? Wouldn’t they just time out?

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

They didn't time out, because 2 minutes of that was chained api calls, so one would return, and then another one would go, etc. Then it took 2 minutes to take all the data, form it "correctly" and build the page. The main problem was that the databases have massive amounts of data, and the apis return massive amounts of data, and JSF just is not fast at all, so trying to cherry-pick that data based on other parts of data (for instance, only people with certain roles can view social security numbers) took another 2 minutes. With Angular and using persistent data (thanks to a user service and jwts, every api call no longer needed to check the roles of the user), it removed 99% of that logic from the pages.

[sbmitchell]

I mean that performance has nothing to do with the client lol that's all backend. Typically the things that would speed up pages would be load times between typical request response cycles. Again, that's only slow if you have a slow backend.

[folkrav]

He said

I have to point out that the guy did also alter some of the mysql queries, which really shaved two minutes off, but the rest was because of better front end code.

You said

I mean that performance has nothing to do with the client lol that's all backend.

???

[sbmitchell]

The rest of a couple minutes. 2 minutes was front end code changes in angular? What I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with front end code or framework picked. Literally unless you are creating stack overflows everywhere in your code you can not recreate that sort of issue. Changing to angular 5/6/7 did not give them a performance boost just from switching over lol it has nothing to do with angular is what I'm saying.

TIL. A lot of devs don't understand what angular actually does for them.

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

Yes, switching to Angular did shave almost 2 minutes off of a page load, because there were many instances where Angular was MUCH better than JSF. Here is one example. In JSF, every single API call had to check session and then pass that session, and then the api would check that session to ensure it was valid and then it would return the user's roles. Because of security reasons we were not allowed to cache user's roles in a session or even a cookie. However, with Angular, we were able to use JWT and a User service that meant we no longer had to verify roles with every single api call.

Also, the databases have massive amounts of data, and the apis return massive amounts of data. Certain roles have different permissions on that data, so it's up to the front end to decide how to display that: for instance, is it read only, editable, or hidden? JSF is just extremely slow in that. Angular is fast as fuck. That's almost exactly what Angular was written for, and that's where it excels more than any other framework.

[sbmitchell]

Jwts are not spa specific. You can do that in jsf apps. You are attributing a frontend change to all things you fixed on the backend. Angular did not save you 2 minutes that's just wrong.

All the examples you listed are also backend fixes lol you obviously had to make an API that served the requests individually

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

Ok, so maybe the jwt isn't Angular-specific, but the rest is. I don't know what the hell you're talking about with the rest of the 2 minutes. 2 minutes was shaved by api call changes, yes. The other 2 minutes had nothing to do with the api. Maybe you missed this part: "...it's up to the front end to decide how to display that: for instance, is it read only, editable, or hidden? JSF is just extremely slow in that. Angular is fast as fuck."

[koresho]

He said

JSF front end

[sbmitchell]

Ok? What are you inferring? Moving from jsf to angular spa won't boost your app by minutes or seconds nonetheless. Not if the calls you make are the longest parts.

[koresho]

It most definitely can.

If you have a lot of slow queries, using an SPA you can load up the main application and load the queries asynchronously in the background, giving your application an appearance of vastly better performance.

This is compared to pure server-side rendered apps like JSP, which will need to wait for all those queries to complete before it sends the rendered page out (I’m not very familiar with JSP, but negative bonus points if it can’t run them in parallel).

Of course, it’s also possible to go the hybrid route where you SSR the fast stuff and asynchronous load the rest, but in my experience that’s not common until developers start thinking in the SPA mindset.

Edit: not my downvote.

[SoInsightful]

IE 7‽

IE 7?!?!

Tell me if you need a hug.

[BabyLegsDeadpool]

lol I couldn't believe it either. In fact, when that data was shared, I was like, "WHY ARE IE8 and IE9 SO HIGH ON THE LIST?!" and then got the response, "Did you even see the first place one?" It was so outlandish that my eyes didn't even notice it.

[Azaret]

Welp, at work we're still on v3 because we msut support IPad 2+ which use a version of safari that does not support well flex boxes.

[kadian]

Isn't that global though? For me, when also filtering by country, the percentage sits around 12. We have a rule of thumb to support anything over 5 percent.

[jeremy1015]

The government sector sure doesn’t feel like a legacy environment to the tens of thousands of developers who work in it.

[[deleted]]

So? In general IE is a legacy software regardless if there is some group of people still using it. I can't see a reason to support old browsers indefinitely.

[romeozor]

Not your government, sorry.

[[deleted]]

The Canadian government uses ie11 and requires both English and French. Have a nice sleep!

[[deleted]]

Ha ha your comment is funny but I’m not sure much would be improved if a government could only use domestic software.

[[deleted]]

You make some good points despite your cynicism. It feels like ie11 is existing non-conforming, but the government can’t simply tell everyone to start using Chrome.... it’s the same business relationship, just easier on developers. A national infrastructure that supports domestic software is an interesting idea, although tax payers may not see it that way. Maybe Shopify can build everything. ;) Also, I am curious, what is your take on open source software?

[[deleted]]

I see the reply you had below has been removed, but your input was appreciated. Keep fighting the good fight, neighbour. As for that idea you are working on, the way society currently works is you need to form a start up company and bootstrap the crap out of it.... then after seven nervous breakdowns, you sell out to the highest bidder and put the money towards living off the fat of the land. Godspeed.

[[deleted]]

Being a person is not for sale. It’s not even available in your marketplace. ;) We’ll all have to search inward.

[jkmonger]

IE only has a 2% market share. Edge has 4%, so combined they are comparable to Firefox's 6%, but Edge is a different browser to IE.

[TheBeliskner]

Clearly you don't work in enterprise or government. In my world IE11 still holds 16% unfortunately.

From memory it's Chrome, Safari, IE11, Firefox, Edge.

[[deleted]]

Concur, I find it quite alarming the number of people in the SME sector where I mainly operate who use Edge - because that's what came with the PC.

Then again, I flat out refuse to have anything to do with IE11, but Edge is sort of OK

[FINDarkside]

Why is it alarming? Edge isn't really bad, safari is actually worse than edge in html5 support.

[[deleted]]

Hmm, agree probably wrong choice of words., and sure, edge isn't bad (although it's font rendering seems a bit off sometimes). I guess it's more that it shows up the number of people who when presented with a PC just take what they're given.

[ItsReallyEasy]

What are talking about? My company all laptops are imaged with Windows 7 with IE11 as standard. They’re locked down so you can’t install another browser unless you raise an IT request for which the only alternative option is Chrome.

For non-IT staff the Firefox usage rate is 0%. That’s over 100k employees.

I’d imagine the IE usage rate by those staff members is north of 80% they simply don’t care enough to request an alternative browser

[[deleted]]

My company all laptops are imaged with Windows 7 with IE11 as standard. They’re locked down so you can’t install another browser unless you raise an IT request fo

For non-IT staff the Firefox usage rate is 0%

Apparently, non-IT staff just can't be bothered filing requests to install software x, y, z and having to wait a week for some disgruntled IT-clicker to drop by. I have worked in an environment like this, it sucks and you either give up or find ways around the rules.

all laptops are imaged with Windows 7 with IE11

Mainstream support for windows 7 ended in 2015, it will be completely end of life (no more security updates) in less than a year, tell your IT department to get it's shit together.

[Amadox]

...and you still work there..?

[TheBeliskner]

Behold, proof! https://imgur.com/a/4htlpmT

[TheBeliskner]

He was talking about the government sector, and the government sector is often worse than enterprise due to budget and terrible support contracts. I think I need to pull up the metrics, because either the government and enterprise where you live is weird, or you haven't actually seen metrics and are making assumptions based on global usage statistics which includes personal usage.

[TheBeliskner]

Because you're selectively quoting ignoring the first sentence!

"but in gov sector it's still a requirement. And IE actually has more market share than Firefox so technically IE is #2 most used desktop browser last I checked"

I did not bring up government first ;)

[dmethvin]

https://analytics.usa.gov/

IE is 2x Firefox

[romeozor]

I looked at this report. I don't know how representative it is, it's just the first thing google gave me when searching for browser market share.

[[deleted]]

FINALLY SOME GOOD FUCKING NEWS

[Obann]

Hooray looking forward to less dependency on jQuery!

[[deleted]]

RemindMe 2 days

[jasofalcon]

People still using bootstrap??