[Javascript] Debugger

[liorean]

Hakan M. wrote:
[- - -]

I'm tired of Microsoft bashing when the arguments are

> I find it pretty obvious that Microsoft is deliberately keeping their 
> browser incompatible and poorly updated, in order to secure the 
> development possibilities of it. Let's face it, they litteraly have an 
> army of developers, adding PNG-support, adding XML-support, fixing the 
> box model, anything could be supported. But by dominating with 
> non-standard applications and solutions, they make sure that THEY are in 
> control of any development. If we want anything, we'll have to ask them 
> to do it, because their native software just isn't up to the task.
I don't see them deliberately keeping it incompatible, they simply use 
the same old embrace-and-extend as they have done in any other area. 
They don't put an army of developers on it because there is simply no 
way they could charge money for the product (not now, after Netscape's 
death and all), and without any possibility to bring in money, they see 
no reason to further develop it unless they can extend it in ways that 
in turn allows them to make money.

> Instead of using JavaScript, they invent JScript.
They backwards engineered JavaScript before there was a standard 
covering it, because Netscape wouldn't let them licence the language.

> Instead of supporting XML/PNG natively, they throw in some ActiveX-junk.
Well, if you have a look at MSXML, you see that it it is actually one of 
the better XML engines. As for PNG, I have a hard time justifying that 
deficiency...

> Instead of using XUL, they invent their own crap, which will be 
> non-standardised of course.
So is XUL. Which, by the way, wasn't the first of it's kind anyway. They 
didn't go develop a technology of their own when there already was a 
standard - the went and developed a technology of their own in an area 
with a number of proprietary technologies. (And a standard that is 
really not that far along yet.)

> I makes me sick to think about the fact that Microsoft is actually board 
> members at W3c. Feels like a law firm that employs theives and murderers 
> to me. If Microsoft ever had any intentions of beeing standards 
> compliant at all, they would've been there ages ago. As it is now, their 
> top-of-the-line, newest browser doesn't have half-decent support for 
> XHTML, something that became a recommendation in the year 2000. That's 
> four years ago.
If it weren't for Microsoft, you would not at all have the CSS specs to 
the level you have it today. They can make a push for a technology, 
sometimes. And if you haven't noticed, ie6w is three years old, which 
makes XHTML a fringe technology that was only a year old at release 
time. And, as I said, that you aren't developing towards ie7w at the 
moment is probably because there is no gains for Microsoft in developing 
the browser further. The moving of the browser development into the OS 
development group in Longhorn suggests that they are now considering the 
browser to be a core technology of the underlying OS instead of just a 
separate application, but perhaps it means that some of the OS 
development money goes to the browser development group. That the 
Longhorn versions we have seen so far are running ie6.05w instead of 
ie7w speaks against that, however.

-- 
liorean <mailto:liorean at user.bip.net>

ViewStyles, ViewScripts, ToggleStyles and GraphicsInfo bookmarklets and 
Theme Switcher, Cookies Handler scripts:
<http://liorean.web-graphics.com/>