 |
|
| Computers Forum Index » Computer - Databases - Pick » Chrome Follies... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Chandru Murthi... |
 Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Before I spend way too much time and getting my bp up searching the web: has
anyone anything good to say about Chrome (not as a general web-surfer, I'm
sure it's ok as that, but as a db viewer)?
So far, I note that there's no way to disable the pop-up blocker (except by
adding -noblock or something to the start line!) This has led to
considerable angst on the web; apparently even some Google mail functions do
not work with Chrome (delicious irony). I find that popups from our web
services are *sometimes* blocked. Driving me crzayy
Submits sometimes freeze. Have not been able to determine at what point.
Does anyone know if there's a javascript debugger for Chrome? Nothing on the
web.
There's no Status line (in their infinite wisdom, Chrome engineers think the
status line is used solely to display URLs on hover, which Chrome does by
using the bottom left corner on hover, thereby screwing up people like me
who use window.status='message' to display messages to my users.
Does anyone LIKE this thing?
Chandru |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kevin Powick... |
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 29, 12:02 pm, "Chandru Murthi" <cmurth_xyz at (no spam) xyz_seeinggreen.net>
wrote:
Quote: Does anyone know if there's a javascript debugger for Chrome? Nothing on the
web.
They actually have a pretty nice javascript debugger and profiler
built right in. Click on the "page" icon, next to the wrench icon, at
the top right. Then click on the "Developer" submenu. There you'll
see "Debug JavaScript" and "JavaScript Console". I find the latter
the most useful, as it also includes some nice profiling graphs under
its "Resources" option.
Quote: Does anyone LIKE this thing?
It loads quickly and is fairly compatible with a lot of websites, but
for general browsing I still prefer FF or Safari. I mainly use Chrome
to debug JavaScript.
--
Kevin Powick |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dawn... |
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 29, 11:02 am, "Chandru Murthi" <cmurth_xyz at (no spam) xyz_seeinggreen.net>
wrote:
Quote: Before I spend way too much time and getting my bp up searching the web: has
anyone anything good to say about Chrome (not as a general web-surfer, I'm
sure it's ok as that, but as a db viewer)?
So far, I note that there's no way to disable the pop-up blocker (except by
adding -noblock or something to the start line!) This has led to
considerable angst on the web; apparently even some Google mail functions do
not work with Chrome (delicious irony). I find that popups from our web
services are *sometimes* blocked. Driving me crzayy
Submits sometimes freeze. Have not been able to determine at what point.
Does anyone know if there's a javascript debugger for Chrome? Nothing on the
web.
There's no Status line (in their infinite wisdom, Chrome engineers think the
status line is used solely to display URLs on hover, which Chrome does by
using the bottom left corner on hover, thereby screwing up people like me
who use window.status='message' to display messages to my users.
Does anyone LIKE this thing?
It was a major bummer when I first looked at Chrome and realized that
after hours and hours of making software look ok in both FF and IE,
knowing I had a few Safari issues, there were a bunch more Chrome
issues. I've licked the ones I found, however (which is better than I
can say for IE -- it is a PITA that :hover doesn't work there, for
example). Anyway I like a few things about Chrome and I use it all the
time, all day long, for gmail and everything I click on from my gmail.
That way I can have IE open for my source control software and FF for
testing software. Occasionally a web site does not work or does not
look good in Chrome. Then I feel better about myself for at least
testing there.
So, yes, I like Chrome and I'm in it right now typing this into Google
Groups, but, no, I'm disgusted with having to test and support yet
another browser, one that doesn't always work right. --dawn
> Chandru |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kevin Powick... |
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 29, 6:04 pm, Tony Gravagno
<address.is.in.po... at (no spam) removethis.com.invalid> wrote:
Quote: Why Chrome? Do
you just want to support a wide variety of browers? Do you have a
specific business case to support development for it? Is it just
curiosity or professional interest? (For better or worse that drives
a lot of what I do here too.)
Just curiosity for me, though I do like their built-in JS debugger.
It really is a PITA to have to support yet another browser. One
company I do work for has, so far, said they are not going to support
Chrome. They already spent a lot of time getting IE/FF/Safari
working, so Chrome is "use at your own risk". I too would not put
much effort into Chrome... yet.
--
Kevin Powick |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chandru Murthi... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: thanks, don;t know hw I missed that
"Kevin Powick" <kpowick at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9976079a-dfcc-464a-8ee2-71e6818c59fb at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 12:02 pm, "Chandru Murthi" <cmurth_xyz at (no spam) xyz_seeinggreen.net>
wrote:
Quote: Does anyone know if there's a javascript debugger for Chrome? Nothing on
the
web.
They actually have a pretty nice javascript debugger and profiler
built right in. Click on the "page" icon, next to the wrench icon, at
the top right. Then click on the "Developer" submenu. There you'll
see "Debug JavaScript" and "JavaScript Console". I find the latter
the most useful, as it also includes some nice profiling graphs under
its "Resources" option.
Quote: Does anyone LIKE this thing?
It loads quickly and is fairly compatible with a lot of websites, but
for general browsing I still prefer FF or Safari. I mainly use Chrome
to debug JavaScript.
--
Kevin Powick |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tony Gravagno... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Does anyone LIKE this thing?
I'm an early adopter of technology but a late adopter of products - if
that makes any sense. I like to see how much other people suffer
before I load something on my system that I need to use on a regular
basis. I don't mind beta software but I don't like to be forced to
sit through alpha/beta issues in software that's released to
production.
So I have not used products like Chrome, Android, Vista, or many other
trendy newcomers, as some of them have been voted off the table as
more trouble than they're worth in the forum of popular opinion.
I only mention that as a lead to my questions for you: Why Chrome? Do
you just want to support a wide variety of browers? Do you have a
specific business case to support development for it? Is it just
curiosity or professional interest? (For better or worse that drives
a lot of what I do here too.)
I don't necessarily recommend my own late-adopter approach, as it's
proven wrong in many cases and I've had to play catchup. But unless
you "need" to support a platform like Chrome, for which there is still
just a tiny user community, I would wonder whether it's worth the
effort.
T |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kevin King... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Working with FF, IE, Chrome, Safari, Opera, even Konquerer is no
different than the way that we (in the MV industry in particular) have
learned to code around differences in Wyse, Adds, and VT terminal
types. I use jQuery to get around most of the incompatibilities with
Javascript, XHTML is remarkably pretty consistent - with the right
DOCTYPE, of course - and CSS is a good solid 80% compatible (with IE
of course being the elephant turd in the room).
That said, FF is my main browser - mostly because of the awesomeness
of Firebug - but I do like Chrome for speed and have had very few
issues with it. Maybe I'm just not hitting it hard enough to hit the
walls you're seeing, but as usual in this business, YMMV. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Symeonb... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chrome's rendering engine is webkit so it will render pretty much the
same (in terms of html) as safari.
I use it to check my sites, as said above i code against ff, then make
the odd tweak for safari/opera/chrome/ie7&8 and then pull my hair out
for ie6 ;)
It may have a decent javascript debugger but i dont venture outside of
ff firebug for that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chandru Murthi... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Chrome's rendering engine is webkit so it will render pretty much the
same (in terms of html) as safari.
Interesting. One of my pet peeves about that quasi-browser Safari was that
you could not style Input tags (eg change background or text color). The
programmers in their arrogance considered this a 'good thing' since it would
not allow web designers to create 'confusingly different' input tag
renderings.
Maybe this has changed, because Chrome works fine with all styling on
inputs/check-boxes.
Chandru
"Symeonb" <symeonb at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf99e65e-bdb9-463c-bc27-3ba2b86e6f11 at (no spam) j39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Quote: I use it to check my sites, as said above i code against ff, then make
the odd tweak for safari/opera/chrome/ie7&8 and then pull my hair out
for ie6 ;)
It may have a decent javascript debugger but i dont venture outside of
ff firebug for that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Symeonb... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chandru - you may want to check out the -khtml-appearance property.
Chrome tho rendering the same will have different css defaults to
safari. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chandru Murthi... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Is this a startup option? If so, cannot impose it on the end-user.
Chandru
"Symeonb" <symeonb at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c01cbda4-e5cb-4d29-911c-10f2b11df5ed at (no spam) c37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Chandru - you may want to check out the -khtml-appearance property.
Chrome tho rendering the same will have different css defaults to
safari. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Symeonb... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 11, 8:11 pm, "Chandru Murthi" <cmurth_xyz at (no spam) xyz_seeinggreen.net>
wrote:
Quote: Is this a startup option? If so, cannot impose it on the end-user.
Chandru"Symeonb" <syme... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c01cbda4-e5cb-4d29-911c-10f2b11df5ed at (no spam) c37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Chandru - you may want to check out the -khtml-appearance property.
Chrome tho rendering the same will have different css defaults to
safari.
It is a css property |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| GlenB... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 30, 9:24 am, Kevin King <ke... at (no spam) precisonline.com> wrote:
Quote: Working with FF, IE, Chrome, Safari, Opera, even Konquerer is no
different than the way that we (in the MV industry in particular) have
learned to code around differences in Wyse, Adds, and VT terminal
types. I use jQuery to get around most of the incompatibilities with
Javascript, XHTML is remarkably pretty consistent - with the right
DOCTYPE, of course - and CSS is a good solid 80% compatible (with IE
of course being the elephant turd in the room).
That said, FF is my main browser - mostly because of the awesomeness
of Firebug - but I do like Chrome for speed and have had very few
issues with it. Maybe I'm just not hitting it hard enough to hit the
walls you're seeing, but as usual in this business, YMMV.
I totally agree, it's all about writing code to W3C standards and
putting in only a few work-around tweaks when absolutely needed. 
The web developer plugin rocks in FF. Our site works fine in every
major browser we've tried. Rendering may be a little different, but
the overall layout and functionality is there. The only two I
personally know of that cause issues are Konquerer and the Wii version
of Opera. The Wii "Internet Channel" (which is free now) does not like
our main ad on the home page for some reason. Konquerer is just too
unstable in general for my use on highly graphical and "advanced"
sites. Anyway, Chrome was not really an issue for us and most of the
content works in the Wii Opera browser. (Typing without a KB in the
Wii is annoying)
GlenB |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tony Gravagno... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
General thoughts...
Developers of public websites face a challenge of trying to make their
pages acceptable to all possible viewers. These days that includes
people on different browsers, operating systems, and devices.
Those of you who sell business application packages to companies (for
accounting, manufacturing, healthcare, etc) do not have the same
requirements. You can advertise support for a very limited set of
browsers and still do very well. That can be taken to extremes - some
will disagree but personally I don't think it's acceptable to mandate
that your software works on only one browser.
For a current web development project I recently recommended to my
client that we only support FireFox 3.5+, IE8, and IE7, and that we
only support Windows. They agreed. Given current statistics, those
three platforms with Windows represents near 90% of the total user
market for valid prospects for their software.
Yes, some 2% of companies might be set on Mac clients. Another 1%
might be set on Linux clients. Another small group uses IE6, Opera,
Safari (mobile maybe), Konqueror, Chrome, or a few others. But these
people are not going to be buying software, and I doubt there are many
companies that mandate that their employees use these browsers.
If you can find someone who will put money down for your software, and
they're insisting on support for some other platform, _then_ you
should consider it. Until then, just get your software out there for
the masses and don't worry about the fringe. It's tough to go wrong
advertising support for 90% of the browser market. The majority of
the notes we see in these forums about issues with other browsers
really doesn't apply to a lot of people who read them.
Now, if you do provide a public-facing site, I recommend the
following: Don't try to make a single web page satisfy the needs of
all browser types, and don't try to make all browsers look exactly the
same. These are geeky goals, not necessary, and not realistic. Also,
don't try to use CSS hacks to make a single stylesheet functional for
several different platforms. Hacks break from one release to another
and it's just not worth it to do it like this.
What you can do is to have your server code identify the client
platform (browser/OS/device) and generate/return only the code that
applies to that platform. Your common code goes in common modules
(just like BASIC with Includes and Common). Your platform-specific
CSS, scripting, and other artifacts should go into separate files,
returned only to browsers that can process them. This makes it a LOT
easier to find issues related to specific platforms because you don't
need to look at unrelated code.
If your IE7 page doesn't look exactly like your FireFox page, tough -
people using one browser aren't using the other and they won't know or
care about the difference. Differences are generally small anyway.
The things to focus on are 1) is your application functional (usable);
and 2) is your application attractive? If it is, then "same" is
irrelevant. As long as it works for your target audience then you're
done. Sell it first, and if you have free time after it's sold, feel
free to nitpik on nuances.
HTH
T
Tony Gravagno
Nebula Research and Development
TG at (no spam) remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com
Nebula R&D sells mv.NET and other Pick/MultiValue products
worldwide, and provides related development services
remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/blog
Visit PickWiki.com! Contribute! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:40 pm
|
|