If we are able to use our cars for 20 years, shouldn't smartphones and web browsers be the same way?

Even though it is better to update software, old versions should not be excluded because otherwise a digital dark age comes closer.

Or maybe the cars will be like phones soon.

the thing is: a car from 20, 30, 40, 50 years basically does the same. burn fuel to move along a road.

information technology, however, changes so rapidly that it's unreasonable to expect it to work for such a long time.

just try opening an average website of today on average hardware from 20 years ago. you won't have any fun with this.

and then imagine having to build a website that still runs on 20 year old webbrowsers.

@tosensei That is true for 2023. 20 years ago, the most widely used web browser was Internet Explorer 6, bundled with Windows XP. Trying to support IE6 today would be a nightmare for any web developer, and it was already back then. YouTube, for example, dropped IE6 support in 2009.

By 2035, "20 years ago" will be 2015. This was when ECMAscript 6 was introduced. Web standards were already mature then.

@exerceo the fact that ECMAscript is the de facto standard proves the point beyond any doubt any sane person could ever have that standards are anything, but NOT mature.

but yeah. who needs any new features, ever? and after all, 640kbyte really ARE enough for everyone.

@tosensei EMCAscript6 is somewhat like 64-bit processors. They were commonplace in the last decade but are still in use in 2023. We don't have 96-bit or 128-bit processors yet.

Sure, improvements are always welcome, but is there any website that could not be made to work in ECMAscript 6?

@exerceo "but is there any website that could not be made to work in ECMAscript 6?"

well - is there any program ever that could not be made to work as a 16bit executable?

technically, anything that can be done in _one_ turing-complete system _can_ be redone in another turing-complete system. the question is just "how dumb is it to do it?"

@tosensei Except there would be no noticeable performance difference in ECMA 6 but the site would be useable again on millions of unchangeable pre-installed smart TV web browsers.

@exerceo "smart tvs" are NOT a technology worth supporting.

"smart tvs" are only useful for spotting the idiots who actually pay money to buy this garbage.

@electrineer MBA wetdream

@tosensei don't you have to pay more to get something without the smart?

@electrineer i dunno. never bought a tv, neither smart or regular.

but if that's the case, then guess why it is that something with extra smart components is cheaper than a base model. and combine that with how much your privacy is worth to corporations.

@tosensei many people simply never connect the TV to the Internet and use a computer or box they like instead.

@aviophille nah. the web is becoming shit because of 1) the persistence of javascript and 2) the growing number of "UX experts"

Plus security. Did anyone mention security?