IE7 and IE8 have not shifted any huge numbers from IE6.. if you look at the statistics for IE, and Windows, you see that IE6 pretty much matches up to the amount of XP users.. web developers don't think aw god nother browser to worry about.. web developers
want to generally stay in a happy middle ground where we can use modern enough features, and perhaps stick our necks out of newer features when its sensible to do so.
IE6 is uniquely the only browser web developers REALLY worried about, it is SO FAR behind todays browsers you stand little chance of making a modern site that can be tweaked to work ok in IE6.. any other modern browsers may disagree on small things, but
these are things that are generally easy to fix..
If you are including IE6 support in your site then the approach you take to building the html/css is COMPLETELY different, you try to avoid anything at all complicated.
I'd also like to point out the immense level of piracy that XP received, to the point today people expect to pick it up for nothing on a torrent site, I'd say theres a noticable percentage of that XP base that are still there purely because they are of the
false expectation that an OS should be FREE to them, and are finding it impossible to successfully pirate newer versions of windows.
These are certainly not people I care to support, nor should microsoft, nor should microsoft after two versions of windows be trying to 'make happy' the people that * and moan the newer revisions aren't up to scratch.. they will NEVER make you happy
because your expectations for what an OS should be are unrealistic and twisted, and completely the opposite of any vision microsoft has.
So in short you can get screwed, stick to your OS that will see increasingly smaller product releases/updates, or move to a new OS, whatever OS you want.
Ofc Microsoft won't say this, they have to keep up the PR and smile and convince you to upgrade to their latest OS, but again expect that to become increasingly 'old' for them to keep up.
Theres absolutely no reason why they would backport this to xp, you can 'HEART HEART HEART HEART 4EVA' xp all you want, and blabber on about how the new windows is aparently worse.. but the fact is that theres a pretty big care factor for microsoft, xp is
now to become extremely legacy given it is now two revisions behind, and approaching 10 years old..
Not many improvements they've made will run on xp, the d2d stuff for example.. if you want the latest software they uh.. you should consider the fact you may need the latest platform.. or hell, at least one made in the last 5 years... ie vista.
To summarize: your petty issues with not wanting to upgrade != issues why microsoft should backport a crippled version of ie9 to xp.
And from a user/dev's perspective, I don't want microsoft to be spending their time (which for IE is extremely short IMO), trying to get the latest in software to work on the quirky and old.
One interesting thing I noticed in this regarding threads and how they don't work for concurrency, whilst true I wonder if the abstraction of a thread (a task) is something we can understand.. it seems to me the problem with needing to manage threads is
their directness.. tasks which abstract needing to manage threads and let me worry about synchronization is a good step towards solving the problem.. the next steps perhaps about how we can automate synchronization.. such that the compiler or runtime can reason
where tasks can be generated and automatically handle the synchronization for me.
Since theres such a great theme of abstractions in this talk (and the initial points about just HOW many abstractions we are on (all the way down to even the atomic / quantum? world)) is something I've thought about before when attempting to reason the need
for certain abstractions.. I would like to think we get to a point where we say less about how our application explicitely wires up, and just set expectations (similar to linq), which the compiler/runtime can automatically reason about and manage an execution
plan for me.. this way the concurrency problem not only isn't harder for us to write, but perhaps even easier because we write less.
Maybe I'm confused about your points regarding events, but the reactive framework adds extensions to wrap events, events are reactive anyway, the reason you would want 'iobservable' events is for the composition advantage they give.
edit: the points regarding let at the end were interesting, but perhaps not really discussed properly, ie.. no practical example.
I wouldn't have two urls, that goes again the idea of a resource to me.. seems to me the video would be posted under a 'main' category, loading the resource would then tell you which category its part of, and you thusly theme the page.
Wow, the stack looks really complex (not to use, but the work you've had to do to make it powerful and easy for consumers of it), congrats - its really impressive.. sucks that I'm primarily a .net web dev .