The optional chaining operator, “modern” browsers, and my mom

Re:The optional chaining operator, “modern” browsers, and my... by zamadatix on Tuesday January 11, 2022 @01:17PM (#29895363)

Sure you do or you eventually find your project goals turn into "supporting the one user who still wants to connect via IE 5" instead of whatever the project goals actually were. I'm not going to say how old a browser your site should support, that depends on the situation, but I will say I've never seen a case where terms as small as "someone" was the right balance.

Optional chaining however is missing for something like 8% of users https://caniuse.com/?search=optional%20chaining so for this specific situation I'd say that's probably a bit too high to not transpile/have a fallback for most anything but a tech demo.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The optional chaining operator, “modern” browsers, and my... by hannasanarion on Tuesday January 11, 2022 @01:32PM (#29895611)

But this isn't just one user. CanIUse says that only 90% of browsers support optional chaining, so you're potentially losing 10% of all of your users. For an American company, that's like refusing to serve black people, or people from Texas, and it's just as outrageous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The optional chaining operator, “modern” browsers, and my... by zamadatix on Tuesday January 11, 2022 @02:54PM (#29896891)

That's what I commented about this particular situation in the second point, right down to the caniuse reference. The first part about a cutoff point was in response to "Regressions are regressions. You don't get to make excuses if you unilaterally changed something for someone" which is not true or the problem in this situation.

[ Parent | on HN ]