This is rather off topic, but maybe you BÖC fans are interested in the Albert Bouchard Demo of Imaginos. At least I was :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soOHIaSyqtU

Nice (altered) Anna Karenina quote.

Unless you have something unique to offer, you likely should not publish.

I know a couple of people holding the same opinion as OP. Can't say they are more productive.

The percentage of people that are hard to work with is higher in this group though.

And I know, what I'm talking about here. Started with a Commodore 64 in 1982, first Linux 1994. Did everything in emacs, calculated mode lines, Unix was my IDE, you name it.

I'm a very happy user of CLion and IntelliJ IDEA now. Wouldn't want to go back to the dark ages.

> “I know a couple of people holding the same opinion as OP. Can't say they are more productive. The percentage of people that are hard to work with is higher in this group though.”

This seems more telling about your attitude towards this subject, and perhaps also lesser skill in assessing or understanding those productivity differences.

This post is about what was believed at Exxon then. What are you on about?

It's also in the spec.

People might not like the spec or it might be incomplete, but adhering to it is a very important part of improving it until it's a good one.

Now I'm no webdev, but I could very well imagine that the spec is already a good one. So the situation might be even worse.

No, it's not a requirement in the spec. Chrome is actually spec compliant regarding this issue.

The spec only says "should", not "must". Apparently these wingnuts thought that means the spec can be ignored.

> The spec only says "should", not "must". Apparently these wingnuts thought that means the spec can be ignored.

Not arguing in favor of this particular choice, but yes. That is exactly what "should" means in most cases.

For instance, in RFC 2119: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

> SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Blanket disregard of a SHOULD directive as a UX decision neither falls under "in particular circumstances" nor indicates that they've "understood and carefully weighed" the consequences.

There are no semantics to discuss. Chrome is spec compliant. That's a fact. Words like "should" and "must" have well defined meaning that is clarified in every spec document, which I would highly advise you to read before writing any further comments and insults.

SHOULD does not equal MAY

It's like Internet Explorer 6 all over again. SAD.

Completely new plane designs are being introduced into the market all the time. What are you talking about?

No, they don't. New variants enter the market, such as the 737 MAX, which are easier to certify.

Boeing introduced the last new airframe for commercial passenger transport on 2009 (the 787). Before that, it introduced the 747 in 1994.

Which new airframes that enter the market all the time are you talking about?

The 737 MAX is a new plane, they hacked the type certification process to get around that.