Chrome 100 Has Arrived (googleblog.com) 54
The Chrome team: The Chrome team is delighted to announce the promotion of Chrome 100 to the stable channel for Windows, Mac and Linux. Chrome 100 is also promoted to our new extended stable channel for Windows and Mac. This will roll out over the coming days/weeks. Chrome 100.0.4896.60 contains a number of fixes and improvements -- a list of changes is available in the log.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would have thought that Chrome would have lasted until 100?
Re: (Score:2)
Nappa: What's Chrome's new version number?
Vegeta (yelling): It's over NINE THOUSAND!!!!
Immediate Breakage (Score:2)
Given its javascript? Immediately.
100 > 99 but "100" "99"
I can pretty much guarantee you that there's code out there that looks like this:
version = navigator.userAgent.match ("chrome Major Version Matching Regex Found On Stack Overflow")
if ( version "72" ) show Popup "oops your browser is too old"
Re: (Score:2)
because of course it at the less than symbols; god forbid a techy nerd site like slashdot support expressing 2nd grade arithmetic notations...
100 greater than 99, but "100" less than "99"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh... I spent nearly five minutes fighting with it because it kept hitting the lameness filter "this looks like ascii art", i finally hit submit after preview stopped showing the red banner ... before i noticed it silently ate the angle brackets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even a little bit complicated:
100 > 99 but "100" < "99"
Look at that, it worked on my first try.
Re: (Score:2)
After additional testing, the ascii art filter kicks in if I omit the spaces inside the parenthesis...
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
version = navigator.userAgent.match (someRegexFoundOnStackOverflow)
Re: (Score:2)
You added a space after match before the parenthesis when you took the other spaces out. Take that space out, and it hits the lameness filter.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point. The length is the issue here, it has nothing to do with the parenthesis. Replace the parenthesis with letters and you'll hit the lameness filter just the same. Add a space and it's fine.
You've made the problem far more complicated than it needs to be. That's a bad habit you should really work to correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know it was the spaces that made the difference, I only mentioned the parenthesis to identify where I'd added spaces.
You are incorrectly inferring that I was saying the parenthesis were significant on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Get real.
After additional testing, the ascii art filter kicks in if I omit the spaces inside the parenthesis
"After additional testing" implies that you've come to some conclusion. If that conclusion was the length was the issue, why not say so? Instead, you imply that the parenthesis are significant in some way as spaces (plural) need to be added inside them.
Also, if your new claim was true, then you'd know that the second space was completely unnecessary. You not only include it, you insist that it's necessary to avoid the lameness filter!
Sorry, kid, it doesn't add up.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if your new claim was true, then you'd know that the second space was completely unnecessary.
Indeed I did.
You not only include it, you insist that it's necessary to avoid the lameness filter!
You are reading a lot more into that than is really there. The 2nd space was merely for consistency since writing "functionName( helloThere)" , while sufficient for the lameness filter looks stupid and is something I'd never write on purpose so I almost unconsciously added the space in both places. My goal wasn't to make the most minimal change I could to demonstrate how the lameness filter works, but more to get the line of code I'd written to pass the lameness filter while still being formatt
Re: (Score:2)
Get over it kid. You said something stupid. It happens. Learn from it and move on. Trying to pretend you didn't just makes you look like an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
hitting the lameness filter "this looks like ascii art"
I've always found this super annoying, if for no other reason than it presumes I'm bored and/or talented enough to generate ASCII art ...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you new to programming? This is the expected behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you new to programming?
No.
Given the only html allowed is listed below the composition box, anything that isn't that should be treated as plain text or alternatively, presented as a validation error.
In what universe is silently discarding things in a free-form text input on a web form, even one that supports limited html, a preferred and expected behavior?
I'll assume by you're question that you aren't new to programming, but if that's your idea of "proper expected behavior", then you aren't much good at user interface design. :p
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about your JavaScript comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. Then, yes, of course its the expected behavior.
But the number of bugs I've seen in javascript due to string vs number types being mismatched without any consideration by the developer is enormous, and aggravated by the fact that it often works as the developer wants it to by blind luck more than intellgent design.
Therefore, here we have the string representation of the version numbers having previously been comparing with the same semantics as the numeric representations, and have been doing so for some
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, we moved all of our internal apps to "web" apps way back in 2006 and I've never once seen a bug like that. You must work with some impressively incompetent people if they're still having trouble with basic types.
Re: (Score:2)
You must work with some impressively incompetent people if they're still having trouble with basic types.
Work with impressively incompetent people? No.
Encountered code written by impressively incompetent people? Yes. Very yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget server-side libraries that deliver alternate content depending on User Agent. Some sites deliver different content if they see Googlebot. And plenty of sites deliver different content delivered if a mobile device is detected. There might even be some exploits/buffer overflows out there with large major version numbers in the User Agent that haven't been explored yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Something breaks because some shitty software somewhere can't handle a 3 digit version number.
Back in version 96, Chrome added a flag that devs could set to jump the version number to 100 in order to test your web sites and apps for possible breakage, should the code instead decide you were on version "10".
Software that is truly shitty, of course, would never have bothered to use this feature, but it was there and less shitty software companies used it.
Version Numbers (Score:2)
Chrome made version numbers meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft started it with Windows 95. Chrome made browser version numbers useless with a too-rapid release schedule which other vendors felt obliged to copy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the rapid release cycle has been a disaster for Chrome. It's only got 80% of the market, and every other major browser copying them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only got 80% of the market, and every other major browser copying them.
Well in fairness the HTML5 spec is mostly what Google wanted in there. The vast majority of those making the HTTP standard and HTML standard work for Google. So pretty much Google is now the standard as opposed to an independent group of people. At the protest of plenty, the organizations have mostly turned a deaf ear, so pretty much everyone except Mozilla saw the writing on the wall and caved.
The Web is exactly what Google sees fit and everyone just copies because playing catch up is pointless (except
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because of the insane way people checked version numbers on Windows. Many NT programs, especially installers would only do simple checks for the version number because that's all the installer allowed - basically substring searches.
So an installe
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because of the insane way people checked version numbers on Windows. Many NT programs, especially installers would only do simple checks for the version number because that's all the installer allowed - basically substring searches.
So an installer might query windows and get back "Windows 9" thinking it was Windows 95, Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and refuse to install.
Apparently it wasn't much of an issue for Windows 2000, because Windows 2.x was pretty much sucky and few programs were available for it. But it's obvious ther'es enough software out there that checks to see if it's running Windows NT series or Windows 9x that it's checked for as well.
Microsoft probably found a number of programs failed in that way because they were braindead, and unlike Apple, Microsoft does want to make sure apps still work so rather than write those malfunctioning apps as buggy, Microsoft just bumped it to Windows 10.
Lame excuse: like I said "rumored". However, I was assuming that the public version numbers didn't correspond to the internal versions, which would be what installers checked. So MS could put any version number for marketing purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft started it with Windows 95.
Windows 95 is just a name on the box like Ubuntu - Focal Fossa.
Windows 95 has version number 4.00.950 for the RTM release. 4.00.950A, 4.00.950B and 4.00.950C denoted the service packs. It isn't meaningless at all.
Microsoft has always followed {Major} . {Minor} . {Build} . {Revision} and continues to this day. And in over 2 decades they've only got the major release up to version 10 (yes open system information on your Windows 11 machine and check the version number)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I miss the old version numberings with major and minor numbers. :(
Inflating version numbers is just stupid (Score:2)
But almost no user will be able to point out the differences between Chrome X and X+1, because they use the first digit already for just anything unimportant.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the change was to convey that there are no major/minor/patch versions anymore. A new feature may be thrown in any time they think it's ready, they won't be held back to release as a group, because Google was sick of browsers evolving too slowly or their taste and things like the HTML 5 and CSS 3 specs couldn't be implemented all at once.
Retired features list... (Score:2)
Google has retired all uses of HTML, XML, URLs, javascript, http, https, text, all image formats, any method of displaying pages, the concept of the page itself, and all known forms of encryption in preference of their new technology that will save the world, Data User Node Graph Hypertext Expression Adaptation Protocol. Google will all of its services and any services that depend on any Google technology to this new combined technology tomorrow.
Re: Retired features list... (Score:2)
Which will be in beta until they kill it.
Woohoo (Score:2)
Who fucking cares.
Re: (Score:2)
For crying out loud people, ditch Chrome (Score:1)
NOPE nada Don't care (Score:1)
Like the banks (Score:2)
Banks used to compound interest quarterly. Then, to compete they started compounding it monthly. Then, daily. Some now even compound continuously.
That is where Chrome and FF updates are headed.