I use Safari where I can, Firefox where I can’t. Latest stable versions. I try to get my scripts from the author’s websites, wherever that may be.
1 Like
Hi,
thanks to everyone who answered the poll, I think the number of participants is already significant (i.e. more than I expected 
). I’m probably going to close it tomorrow.
The main conclusions for me:
-
the vase majority of users use Firefox or Chrome with a recent version
…so I don’t need to be as conservative in the javascript I write: that probably won’t be visible for standard script users but that will simplify my work (e.g. using the fetch API) -
Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey are equally split and lots of people use greasyfork
…so I will probably wait until Firefox 57 to see if I need to change my tools
Thanks again!
What benefit compared to xmlHttpRequest for scripts?
Basically replacing callbacks by Promises so that you can write fetch(url, {options}).then(successFunction).catch(errorFunction). So, easier to read and write and to combine with arrow-functions.
See e.g. MDN and this commit. For me that means hopefully getting rid of my wrapper around xmlHttpRequest…
To me it looks like comparing code by sacrificing readability and compatibility.
Although being sent to an AngularJS, those promises and arrows have been so cryptic to me that I cannot understand how what when they do.
FWIW I’m currently trying to switch from Opera 12 (presto) to Vivaldi 1.0.435.46 (the last working Windows XP version).
With Violentmonkey, I don’t know if Tampermonkey is better…
1 Like
Follow-up: now that Firefox 57 is out, I expect Greasemonkey users to have trouble with some scripts.
At least I couldn’t have my own scripts working in their current state (lodash and jquery not found)… could be because Greasemonkey 4 itself has unsolved bugs.
If you have problems with my scripts, don’t hesitate to contact me (IRC, email through musicbrainz, bitbucket issue), I’ll try to fix them fast if I can. Otherwise the scripts seem to work fine with Tampermonkey.
1 Like