• Xylight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    12 hours ago

    When developing photon I always end up with more issues on chrome browsers than firefox. and half of those are because of its god awful scrollbar. Please use an overlay scrollbar instead of shifting the stupid page around, chrome.

    • TriflingToad
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      ugh yeah classic chrome am I right? (I forgot how to center a div)

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    15 hours ago

    My website only works with Chrome, but it has to be a specific old version of it. And you also need to install some extensions. Very specific versions of these extensions. Few of them already removed from the store due to security backdoors.

    I have a Docker image you can use to run Chrome though.

  • wowwoweowza@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Greatest format ever. I present you with the Demi-God of memes award for best use of THEY LIVE if you originated the template. If you did not originate you get the cool assed dude award for sharing. Many thanks.

  • Mnemnosyne
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I like this template so much better than the Spider-Man one that people constantly use backwards.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    282
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    If your website only works with Chrome, it’s not a website. It’s a Chrome site.

    You didn’t design for the web. You designed for Chrome.

      • Lena@gregtech.eu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I agree that Chrome fucking sucks, but it’s disingenuous to call it unoptimized. Chrome and chromium-based browsers are as fast as or faster than Firefox. Although I agree that manifest V3 is horrible to the web as a whole and shouldn’t have been created.

          • spookex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 minutes ago

            AFAIK the built-in translator doesn’t support Japanese, which is 99% of translation I need and the extension (which is what is was trying to use before) either requires you to select the text that you want to translate one-by-one or run the whole page through translate.google.com, which doesn’t work with any page that requires an account to access or triggers ddos protection on some others.

            • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 minutes ago

              Yeah, I think Firefox’s translation feature is technically still in beta.

          • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            16 hours ago

            *For a limited set of languages. Until they add Japanese I won’t be getting much use from it, sadly.

            • Redkey@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I use 10ten (previously Rikuchamp) for Japanese. I don’t think it does full translation, but it gives thorough dictionary lookups (from WWWJDIC) as mouseover tooltips. Very useful if you’re trying to learn the language, but maybe not so much if you just want to read stuff quickly. I think it’s now available for every major browser, but I mostly use it on FF.

        • Irelephant@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Real. Only thing i pop microsoft edge open for. Firefox’s one is too slow.

    • Lucidlethargy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Chrome is awful in nearly every way one can measure a browser. Anyone still using this as they’re main driver in 2025 is technologically challenged.

      • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        It’s wild to see Chrome going from the browser to use if you had any tech sense whatsoever to being universally derided.

        • morrowind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Universally derided

          lol try looking outside lemmy. 90% of people still just use it and don’t care

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      That’s not necessarily true. Circa 2016–17 I frequented a website that worked in Chrome but not Firefox. This was due to Firefox at the time not implementing web standards that Chrome did. Firefox only got around to it in 2019. So naturally, the developer of the site was telling people to use Chrome.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        88
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I don’t know the history of column span but the reason Firefox was “behind” on standards was because Google was pushing new standards through committee faster than competing browsers could keep up. Google would implement a new feature, offer it as a free standard, then get it through the committee. Because Google already had it in their browser, they were already compliant while Firefox had to scramble.

        It was Google doing their variation of “embrace, extend, extinguish”

        It got so bad that not even Microsoft had the resources to keep up. They said as much when they said they were adopting Chromium as their engine.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Google was actually later to implement this particular standard than Edge and Safari, at least according to MDN. And I believe this was before Chredge.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        This was due to Firefox at the time not implementing web standards that Chrome did.

        Uhm, yeah, that’s what browsers do. There are somewhere about 150 web standards and some are hard requirement while others are soft. Blink has some implemented that Webkit hasn’t but Gecko has and that’s true for all three. Same for browsers.

        Btw, the one with the most implemented standards is QtWebkit by far. It’s still slower tho.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Yeah? I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that. I’m saying it’s bullshit to say a developer has done a crap job when one browser doesn’t implement a web standard that is perfect tailor-made for their site’s use case.

          • Ethan@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            If your job is to make websites and you make sites that don’t work on a browser that has over 100 million users you’re not doing your job.

          • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Still a bad job tho, if his implementation requires things that aren’t common and has no workarounds in place.

      • Eiri@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m gonna be honest, if they used a feature that wasn’t ready for prime time, it’s still on them.

        • dajoho
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          Totally agree. It’s not the fault of Firefox at all. This is just being trigger-happy on new standards before they are ready and unwillingness to fix a problem in a different way.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          23 hours ago

          It got added because it worked extremely well on browsers that implemented it, and it solved a problem that was needed on the site in question, which was very difficult to solve otherwise. I can’t blame a site for using an open standard that works for a majority of its users and which makes the development effort significantly less.

  • BroBot9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m going to have to go down the rabbit hole of making my own website soon. Just curious but would there be an easy way to show a pop up just to people using chrome?

    No reason in particular… 😏

    • ‮redirtSdeR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      20 hours ago

      lol i did something like what i assume your goal is on my neocities when i detect !!window.chrome === true

        • rektdeckard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          19 hours ago

          It’s a handy way to convert any value to a Boolean. If window.chrome is defined and done non-empty value, double negation turns it into just true.

          • Faresh@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            18 hours ago

            I’ve been wondering why not window.chrome == true or Boolean(window.chrome), but it turns out that the former doesn’t work and that == has essentially no use unless you remember some completely arbitrary rules, and that JS developers would complain that the latter is too long given the fact that I’ve seen javascript code using !0 for true and !1 for false, instead of just true and false because they can save 2 to 3 characters that way.

            • ivn@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 hours ago

              I’ve never seen the !0 and !1, it is dumb and indicates either young or terrible devs.

              Boolean(window.chrome) is the best, !!window.chrome is good, no need to test if it’s equal to true if you make it a boolean beforehand.

            • marcos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              14 hours ago

              == has essentially no use unless you remember some completely arbitrary rules

              If you make sure the types match, like by explicitly converting things on the same line on that example, then you can use it just like if it was ===.

              In fact, there are people that defend that if your code behaves differently when you switch those two operators, your code is wrong. (Personally, I defend that JS it a pile of dogshit, and you should avoid going to dig there.)

        • CorvidCawder
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          JS “idiomatic” way to cast to boolean. But could just be written as !window.chrome instead.

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not sure if serious, but there’s a million ways to do this, some that require importing thousands of lines of code and none of which are guaranteed to work in all possible circumstances. But here’s a simple one.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Is that http2? Cause http2 allows for reuse of a connection for additional requests.

      This caught me out with envoy reverse proxy doing a few subdomains using a wildcard cert.
      The browser would reuse the connection cause the cert authority and IP was the same, but envoy couldn’t figure out how to route the request correctly. Absolute head scratcher!