Jesus Christ, to think there are people in this thread defending what the assholes in the Chrome team did is unbelievable. You make breaking changes opt-in, that is API design 101.
Linus should take over Chrome development.
You can make it opt-in without breaking other people stuff. If a website doesn't opt in their users will migrate to another one that offers the same content with a better user experience. It just won't happen tomorrow (<- common sense, of the real kind).
What really bothers me is that people like you can't figure out that there is a trend behind this and it's not good one.
> If a website doesn't opt in their users will migrate to another one that offers the same content with a better user experience
Can't you see how this logic also applies in Chrome's case: everybody would switch to another browser that does passive listeners by default because it's a better user experience.
What's bothering me is that people like you think they are entitled to not maintain your active web apps on browsers that you didn't even help to develop. It's not about you, it's about the users.
There is a rule against breaking APIs, there is no rule against making a website that is better than another one.
So by your logic it's ok for you to kill and rob a rich person and redistribute all the money because, hey, at the end of the day it's a better user experience for everyone else and if you don't do it someone else might.
EDIT: By the way, browsers are in the business of providing a platform. Platforms should be stable. If they plan on not doing that they should say so. Guess how many developers will stop supporting chrome the day after that?
What rule? Is it that the 11th commandment? How about my rule: Users are more important than API backwards compatibility (because, in the end, we are serving users, not developers.).
It's simple really: killing a person to enhance user experience is morally wrong.
Forcing, in very rare cases (by my own experience), some developers to make a 1 line change so that in effect almost all pages will have jitter-free scrolling is a worthy exchange.
> By the way, browsers are in the business of providing a platform
YES!!! That's the main point of it. They serve (and thus get payed by) users first, developers second.
> Platforms should be stable. If they plan on not doing that they should say so. Guess how many developers will stop supporting chrome the day after that.
They did more than say, the just did it. So let me guess have many web developers will stop developing for Chrome now? uhmmm ..., zero?
If they plan on making breaking APIs changes whenever they feel like their data suggest it's ok, they should clearly say so. But like openly, on the front of the chrome web page: "We care about you, the user, and will break the platform for the developers whenever we think it's necessary to improve your experience".
> It's simple really: killing a person to enhance user experience is morally wrong
Well for me it's morally wrong to break APIs, if you don't agree I hope to never touch anything you ever make.
This is not about caring about the users, it's about doing it without pissing on the developers heads.
By the way, I was not even affected by this, but I know that if we let this slide it will just get worse and worse. As if the web was a nice platform to develop on to start with...
