Stories with Tag browser compatibility

• I-cant-believe-its-not-webusb: Hacking around lack of WebUSB support in Firefox

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-14 08:36:08

  Verbose tl;dr

  This project demonstrates a workaround for Firefox's lack of WebUSB support by leveraging its native messaging capabilities. A small native application acts as a bridge, receiving commands from a web page via native messaging and interacting directly with USB devices. The web page communicates with this intermediary application using a custom, WebUSB-like JavaScript API, effectively emulating WebUSB functionality within Firefox. This allows web developers to write code that interacts with USB devices in a consistent manner across browsers, handling the Firefox difference behind the scenes.

  This GitHub project, "I-can't-believe-it's-not-WebUSB," addresses the frustration of Firefox users who want to interact with USB devices directly from web pages but are hampered by the browser's lack of WebUSB support. The project implements a workaround, not a true implementation of WebUSB, by leveraging Firefox's existing support for the serial API. Essentially, it acts as a bridge between a web page and a connected USB device.

  The core functionality revolves around a native messaging host application. This small program, written in Python, runs outside the browser and has direct access to the system's USB devices. On the web page side, a JavaScript library communicates with this native host using the browser's native messaging capabilities. When a web page needs to interact with a USB device, the JavaScript library formats the request and sends it as a message to the native host.

  The native host receives this message, parses the requested action, and then uses the pyusb library in Python to carry out the interaction with the specified USB device. The result of this interaction, whether it's data read from the device or a confirmation of a write operation, is then packaged into a response message and sent back to the JavaScript library in the browser. The library then makes this data available to the web page.

  This setup effectively circumvents the absence of WebUSB in Firefox. While it doesn't offer the same level of integration or security as a native WebUSB implementation, it provides a functional alternative for developers who need to access USB devices from Firefox. The project focuses specifically on USB CDC-ACM devices (Communication Device Class - Abstract Control Model), which are commonly used for serial communication, essentially treating the USB device as a virtual serial port. Therefore, its applicability is primarily for devices that use this communication standard. The reliance on a separate native host application adds a layer of complexity compared to the seamless experience offered by WebUSB in supporting browsers, but provides a practical, albeit somewhat cumbersome, solution for interacting with USB devices from Firefox.

  • WebUSB
  • Firefox
  • hacking
  • Workaround
  • USB
  • browser compatibility
  • javascript
  • Web Development
  • Serial Communication
  • Device Access
  • UserSpace Driver
  • Proxy

  Summary of Comments ( 98 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43360642

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News commenters generally expressed frustration with Firefox's lack of WebUSB support, echoing the author's sentiments. Some pointed out that the Mozilla Developer Network (MDN) documentation misleadingly suggests WebUSB is supported, while others shared workarounds and alternative solutions, including using Chrome or a native messaging host. A few commenters questioned the security implications of granting websites access to USB devices, highlighting potential vulnerabilities. The complexity of adding WebUSB support in Firefox was also discussed, citing issues like sandboxing and driver interaction as potential roadblocks. One commenter offered a personal anecdote about the challenges of debugging WebUSB issues due to inconsistent browser implementations.

  The Hacker News post "I-cant-believe-its-not-webusb: Hacking around lack of WebUSB support in Firefox" has generated a moderate discussion with several insightful comments focusing on the workaround presented, the complexities of WebUSB implementation, and potential security concerns.

  One commenter points out the inherent irony and difficulty of making this kind of workaround secure. They highlight the potential for abuse if a malicious webpage could hijack the native messaging host, essentially defeating the purpose of the security sandbox. This comment raises a critical issue with the approach, suggesting that despite the cleverness, the security implications might outweigh the benefits.

  Another user discusses the intricacies of WebUSB support and speculates on the reasons behind Firefox's decision not to fully implement it. They mention that WebUSB requires significant effort to implement securely and maintain, possibly posing challenges for browser vendors. They also touch upon the limitations of the workaround, particularly regarding access to isochronous endpoints which are crucial for certain USB devices like audio interfaces. This comment offers valuable context for understanding the technical hurdles involved in WebUSB implementation.

  A different comment highlights the lack of detailed error messages in WebUSB, making debugging difficult for developers. This practical observation emphasizes the challenges faced by those working with WebUSB and hoping to integrate it into their applications.

  One commenter also explores alternative approaches for cross-browser USB device access. They suggest WebHID and Web Serial as potentially viable options depending on the specific use case, offering practical alternatives to WebUSB.

  Finally, a participant expresses their support for projects like this that attempt to bridge the gap in functionality between different browsers. They acknowledge the inherent challenges in maintaining such workarounds but appreciate the effort to provide a more unified experience for web developers.

  In summary, the discussion revolves around the practicality, security implications, and technical challenges associated with the proposed WebUSB workaround. Commenters acknowledge the cleverness of the approach while also raising important concerns about its long-term viability and security. They offer alternative solutions and insights into the complexities of WebUSB implementation, providing a balanced perspective on the topic.

• A Perplexing JavaScript Parsing Puzzle

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-12 14:46:02

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hillel Wayne presents a seemingly straightforward JavaScript code snippet involving a variable assignment within a conditional statement containing a regular expression match. The unexpected behavior arises from how JavaScript's RegExp object handles global flags. Because the global flag is enabled, subsequent calls to test() within the same regex object continue matching from the previous match's position. This leads to the conditional evaluating differently on subsequent runs, resulting in the variable assignment only happening once even though the conditional appears to be true multiple times. Effectively, the regex remembers its position between calls, causing confusion for those expecting each call to test() to start from the beginning of the string. The post highlights the subtle yet crucial difference between using a regex literal each time versus using a regex object, which retains state.

  The blog post "A Perplexing JavaScript Parsing Puzzle" by Hillel Wayne presents a seemingly straightforward JavaScript code snippet that produces an unexpected and counterintuitive result due to the intricacies of JavaScript's parsing rules. The puzzle revolves around the behavior of the ++ (increment) operator when combined with optional chaining (?.) and bracket notation for property access.

  Specifically, the code attempts to increment a property of an object that might not exist. It uses optional chaining to safely access the potentially missing property and then attempts to increment its value if it exists. The puzzle lies in the observed behavior differing depending on whether the property is accessed using dot notation or bracket notation.

  When dot notation is employed (e.g., object?.property++), the increment operation works as seemingly intended: if the property exists, its value is incremented; if it doesn't, nothing happens. However, when bracket notation is used with a string literal key (e.g., object?.['property']++), the code throws a ReferenceError. Even more perplexing, if bracket notation is used with a variable holding the property name (e.g., let key = 'property'; object?.[key]++), the code does not throw an error, but neither does it increment the property. Instead, the value of the property remains unchanged.

  Wayne meticulously dissects this behavior by delving into the complexities of the JavaScript specification, specifically the processes of parsing, evaluation, and the distinction between left-hand-side (LHS) and right-hand-side (RHS) expressions in assignments. He demonstrates how the parsing of these different syntactic constructs leads to different internal representations, which ultimately explains the divergent outcomes. The core issue arises from the way JavaScript handles assignments in conjunction with optional chaining. The optional chaining effectively short-circuits the evaluation if the base object is null or undefined. However, the increment operator requires an LHS reference to assign the incremented value. In the problematic cases, the parsing rules prevent the creation of a valid LHS reference when optional chaining is combined with bracket notation, leading to either a ReferenceError or a silently failing increment operation.

  The post concludes by highlighting the non-intuitive nature of this behavior and the challenges it poses for developers, especially considering the relative newness of the optional chaining feature. It serves as a cautionary tale about the subtle yet significant impact of seemingly minor syntactic variations in JavaScript and emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying parsing rules to avoid unexpected pitfalls.

  • javascript
  • parsing
  • Puzzle
  • programming
  • Web Development
  • syntax
  • interpreter
  • regular expressions
  • browser compatibility
  • ECMAScript

  Summary of Comments ( 11 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43343832

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss various aspects of the perplexing JavaScript parsing puzzle. Several commenters analyze the specific grammar rules and automatic semicolon insertion (ASI) behavior that lead to the unexpected result, highlighting the complexities of JavaScript's parsing logic. Some point out that the ++ operator binds more tightly than the optional chaining operator (?.), explaining why the increment applies to the property access result rather than the object itself. Others mention the importance of tools like ESLint and linters for catching such potential issues and suggest that relying on ASI can be problematic. A few users share personal anecdotes of encountering similar unexpected JavaScript behavior, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of these parsing quirks. One commenter suggests the puzzle demonstrates why "simple" languages can be more difficult to master than initially perceived.

  The Hacker News post titled "A Perplexing JavaScript Parsing Puzzle" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43343832) has generated a robust discussion with several compelling comments exploring the nuances of JavaScript's parsing behavior.

  Several commenters dive into the technicalities of the automatic semicolon insertion (ASI) rules in JavaScript, explaining how they contribute to the unexpected behavior highlighted in the linked article. They point out that ASI is not simply adding semicolons wherever they seem to fit, but follows a specific set of rules based on the grammar, leading to occasional counter-intuitive outcomes. One commenter notes that ASI is "notoriously confusing," even for experienced JavaScript developers, and emphasizes the importance of understanding these rules to avoid subtle bugs. Another commenter provides a detailed breakdown of how the JavaScript parser interprets the code snippet, showing step-by-step how ASI leads to the unintuitive result.

  Some comments focus on the practical implications of such parsing quirks. One commenter highlights how these unexpected behaviors can make debugging and maintenance more difficult, especially in larger codebases. Another user suggests using a linter or code formatter to enforce consistent coding style and catch potential ASI-related issues early on. They argue that preventative tools like linters are essential for avoiding subtle bugs caused by unexpected parsing.

  The discussion also touches upon the broader topic of language design. One commenter critiques the complexity of JavaScript's grammar and argues that such ambiguous parsing rules make the language more prone to errors. Another commenter offers a contrasting perspective, suggesting that while ASI might seem counterintuitive at first, it's a necessary mechanism for maintaining backward compatibility with older JavaScript code.

  Several comments offer specific solutions or workarounds to avoid the problem presented in the article. These include explicitly adding semicolons, using parentheses to clarify the intended grouping of expressions, and relying on linters to detect potential ASI-related issues. One commenter even provides an alternative way to write the code snippet that avoids the problematic ASI behavior altogether.

  Finally, some commenters express their surprise and amusement at the unexpected behavior demonstrated in the article, highlighting the sometimes-perplexing nature of JavaScript. One commenter remarks on how such puzzles can be a valuable learning experience, helping developers gain a deeper understanding of the language's intricacies. Another simply expresses their amazement, calling the behavior "truly bizarre." The comments collectively reveal a mix of technical analysis, practical advice, and shared bewilderment regarding JavaScript's intricate parsing rules.

• A decade later, a decade lost (2024)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-14 23:10:36

  Verbose tl;dr

  Eric Meyer reflects on the ten years since the release of his book, "Designing for Performance," lamenting the lack of significant progress in web performance. While browsers have gotten faster, web page bloat has outpaced these improvements, resulting in a net loss for users. He points to ever-increasing JavaScript execution times and the prevalence of third-party scripts as primary culprits. This stagnation is particularly frustrating given the heightened importance of performance for accessibility, affordability, and the environment. Meyer concludes with a call to action, urging developers to prioritize performance and break the cycle of accepting ever-growing page weights as inevitable.

  Eric Meyer, in his June 7, 2024 blog post entitled "A decade later, a decade lost (2024)," reflects with a palpable sense of disappointment on the state of web development a decade after his original post in 2014 lamenting the stagnation of the field. He posits that the intervening ten years have not witnessed the advancements he had hoped for, specifically in the realm of layout tools. While acknowledging some marginal improvements, such as the wider adoption of Flexbox and Grid, he argues these developments have not fundamentally altered the landscape or resolved the core issues that plagued web design in 2014. He expresses particular frustration with the enduring prevalence of single-column layouts and the lack of substantial innovation in layout modules beyond Flexbox and Grid.

  Meyer details his earlier optimism for advancements inspired by the print design world, such as regions and exclusions, which have failed to materialize in any meaningful way. He laments the lack of development in areas like multi-column layout handling overflow, fragmentation, and spanning, emphasizing the limitations of existing tools when dealing with these complex scenarios. Furthermore, he notes the continued dominance of JavaScript frameworks and libraries, which he views as adding complexity and overhead while often failing to deliver truly novel or efficient layout solutions. He suggests these frameworks, while providing some structure, often obscure or even hinder access to the underlying CSS layout capabilities that could be leveraged for more elegant and performant design.

  His disappointment extends to the perceived lack of focus within the web standards community on pushing the boundaries of layout technology. He contrasts the relative stagnation in this area with the significant advancements made in other aspects of web development, such as the proliferation of new JavaScript frameworks. This, he suggests, implies a misdirection of effort and a lack of appreciation for the fundamental importance of robust and flexible layout tools. He concludes with a renewed plea for the development community to revisit and prioritize innovation in layout, arguing that the current state of affairs represents a significant missed opportunity and a detriment to the evolution of the web. He underscores the ongoing need for more advanced layout tools to unlock the true potential of the web platform and facilitate the creation of richer, more dynamic, and ultimately more user-friendly web experiences.

  • Web Development
  • Web Standards
  • browser compatibility
  • internet explorer
  • Progress
  • stagnation
  • Web Design
  • Front-End Development
  • past decade
  • 2010s
  • 2020s
  • lost decade

  Summary of Comments ( 127 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43054069

  Verbose tl;dr

  Commenters on Hacker News largely agree with Eric Meyer's sentiment that the past decade of web development has been stagnant, focusing on JavaScript frameworks and single-page apps (SPAs) to the detriment of the core web platform. Many express frustration with the complexity and performance issues of modern web development, echoing Meyer's points about the dominance of JavaScript and the lack of focus on fundamental improvements. Some commenters discuss the potential of Web Components and the resurgence of server-side rendering as signs of positive change, though others are more pessimistic about the future, citing the influence of large tech companies and the inherent inertia of the current ecosystem. A few dissenting voices argue that SPAs offer legitimate benefits and that the web has evolved naturally, but they are in the minority. The overall tone is one of disappointment with the current state of web development and a desire for a return to simpler, more performant approaches.

  The Hacker News post "A decade later, a decade lost (2024)" linking to Eric Meyer's blog post has generated a significant number of comments discussing the stagnation and perceived decline in web development over the past ten years.

  Several commenters echo Meyer's sentiment, expressing frustration with the increasing complexity and bloat of modern web development. They point to the prevalence of JavaScript frameworks and libraries, which, while offering powerful tools, often lead to over-engineered solutions and performance issues. Some argue that the focus has shifted away from core web technologies like HTML and CSS in favor of these JavaScript-heavy approaches. This, they believe, has created a barrier to entry for newcomers and contributed to the decline in accessibility and overall user experience.

  The dominance of large tech companies like Google, Facebook (now Meta), and Apple is also a recurring theme. Commenters suggest that these companies' pursuit of their own interests, often at the expense of open web standards, has stifled innovation and led to a fragmented web ecosystem. The increasing use of proprietary technologies and the influence of advertising models are cited as contributing factors to this fragmentation.

  Some commenters express a sense of nostalgia for the "simpler" web of the past, where websites were built with leaner codebases and focused on delivering content efficiently. They lament the loss of this perceived simplicity and the increasing difficulty in building and maintaining performant websites.

  However, not all comments share this pessimistic view. Some argue that the web has undeniably evolved and improved in many ways, pointing to advancements in mobile responsiveness, rich media integration, and interactive experiences. They acknowledge the complexities of modern web development but contend that these complexities are often necessary to address the increasing demands of users and the ever-evolving landscape of the internet.

  The discussion also touches upon the challenges of web standardization and the slow pace of browser adoption for new features. Some commenters express disappointment with the lack of interoperability between browsers and the difficulties in implementing consistent user experiences across different platforms. They suggest that this lack of standardization further contributes to the complexity and fragmentation of the web.

  Overall, the comments reflect a mix of frustration, nostalgia, and cautious optimism about the future of web development. While many lament the perceived decline in simplicity and accessibility, others acknowledge the advancements made and express hope for a more collaborative and standards-driven approach to web development in the years to come. The conversation highlights the ongoing tension between innovation and standardization, and the challenges of balancing the needs of users, developers, and the powerful tech companies that shape the web landscape.

• Tell HN: Cloudflare is blocking Pale Moon and other non-mainstream browsers

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-05 19:08:12

  Verbose tl;dr

  Cloudflare is reportedly blocking access to certain websites for users of Pale Moon and other less common browsers like Basilisk and Otter Browser. The issue seems to stem from Cloudflare's bot detection system incorrectly identifying these browsers as bots due to their unusual User-Agent strings. This leads to users being presented with a CAPTCHA challenge, which, in some cases, is unpassable, effectively denying access. The author of the post, a Pale Moon user, expresses frustration with this situation, especially since Cloudflare offers no apparent mechanism to report or resolve the issue for affected users of niche browsers.

  A Hacker News user has reported that Cloudflare is seemingly blocking access to websites protected by its services when using the Pale Moon web browser, and potentially other less common browsers. The user describes encountering Cloudflare's "Checking your browser before accessing..." page, which typically precedes legitimate access but in this case never progresses, effectively denying access. This issue specifically arises with Pale Moon 29.4.1 (x64) on Windows 10. The user emphasizes that they have disabled all extensions and add-ons within Pale Moon, eliminating them as a potential cause of the blockage. They also note that clearing cookies and site data did not resolve the issue. The affected websites are served through Cloudflare, but the exact trigger for the block remains unclear. The user hypothesizes that Cloudflare might be targeting Pale Moon's User-Agent string, a piece of information browsers send to websites identifying themselves, speculating that Cloudflare may have a list of acceptable User-Agent strings and is blocking access from browsers with unrecognized identifiers. This suggests a potential incompatibility between Cloudflare's security measures and Pale Moon's browser identification. The user highlights the inconvenience this poses, particularly for users who rely on or prefer less mainstream browsers. The post implies a concern regarding the control Cloudflare exerts over web access and the potential for exclusion of legitimate users based on browser choice.

  • Cloudflare
  • pale moon
  • Web Browser
  • blocking
  • browser compatibility
  • anti-fraud
  • bot detection
  • User Agent
  • ua string
  • internet censorship
  • Web Standards
  • accessibility

  Summary of Comments ( 370 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42953508

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed Cloudflare's blocking of Pale Moon and other less common browsers, primarily focusing on the reasons behind the block and its implications. Some speculated that the block stemmed from Pale Moon's outdated TLS/SSL protocols creating security risks or excessive load on Cloudflare's servers. Others criticized Cloudflare for what they perceived as anti-competitive behavior, harming browser diversity and unfairly impacting users of niche browsers. The lack of clear communication from Cloudflare about the block drew negative attention, with users expressing frustration over the lack of transparency and the difficulty in troubleshooting the issue. A few commenters offered potential workarounds, including using a VPN or adjusting browser settings, but there wasn't a universally effective solution. The overall sentiment reflected concern about the increasing centralization of internet infrastructure and the potential for large companies like Cloudflare to exert undue influence over web access.

  The Hacker News post "Tell HN: Cloudflare is blocking Pale Moon and other non-mainstream browsers" generated a robust discussion with several commenters offering perspectives on Cloudflare's decision and its implications.

  Several commenters questioned the original poster's (OP) assertion that Cloudflare was intentionally blocking Pale Moon and other niche browsers. They suggested the issue stemmed from Pale Moon's outdated user agent string, which websites and security services (like Cloudflare) use to identify browsers. These outdated strings can trigger security measures designed to block older, potentially vulnerable browser versions. This perspective was supported by anecdotes of users modifying Pale Moon's user agent string to mimic a supported browser, successfully bypassing the block. Some users even suggested this was a Pale Moon developer's responsibility to update.

  Others discussed the broader implications for browser diversity and the potential for dominant players to inadvertently (or intentionally) marginalize smaller browsers. They expressed concern about the internet consolidating around a few supported browser engines, potentially stifling innovation and user choice.

  Several commenters delved into the technical details of User-Agent strings and Cloudflare's likely methods for detecting and blocking outdated browsers. They speculated on the specific heuristics used, including potential reliance on lists of known vulnerable user agents. This technical discussion highlighted the complexity of balancing security and compatibility on the web.

  Some users expressed sympathy for the OP's frustration but ultimately sided with Cloudflare, arguing that maintaining support for every niche browser is an unreasonable burden, especially given the security risks associated with outdated software. They framed Cloudflare's actions as a necessary step to protect the broader internet ecosystem.

  A few commenters suggested alternative solutions, such as using a more modern browser or exploring privacy-focused browsers like Firefox with hardening configurations. They questioned the practicality and security implications of clinging to older browser technologies.

  Finally, a smaller thread within the comments focused on Pale Moon specifically, discussing its development history, its relationship to Firefox, and the decisions made by its developers that might contribute to compatibility issues.

  Overall, the comments section reveals a nuanced discussion around the balance between security, browser diversity, and the practicalities of web development. While some sympathize with users of niche browsers, the general consensus leaned towards understanding Cloudflare's decision as a necessary, though unfortunate, consequence of maintaining web security. The discussion highlights the ongoing tension between supporting a diverse internet landscape and protecting users from the risks associated with outdated software.