[err4nt]

Sniffing User-Agent has been poor practice since 2011 , in favour of feature detection using a library like Modernizr.

I used to advocate using something like Modernizr and then writing your code against the results, but now I think an even more straightforward approach is to just do the feature detection you wish to use directly in your code. No sense in loading in a library and testing for things you don't need, still only to have those tests totally decoupled from the parts of your codebase that depend on the feature detection.

It makes more sense to do only the feature detection you need right in your codebase adjacent to the code which relies on the results.

[toyg]

> Sniffing User-Agent has been poor practice since 2011

I'm old enough to remember it was much earlier than that. In the early '00s there were already calls to do feature detection; jQuery was released in 2006 and it basically did it for you. In 2015, there is no excuse to do UA sniffing -- if anything, because we now have 20 years of case-history showing people will trivially spoof it.

[decode]

> In 2015, there is no excuse to do UA sniffing

Unfortunately, there are cases where it is still necessary. For example, IE 10 reports that it supports the CSS pointer-events property, but it only works on SVG elements, not HTML elements.

http://caniuse.com/#feat=pointer-events

[err4nt]

When I went professional with my web development (2009) I can remember the in-the-know people were actively advocating for feature detection, but it was still common practice even in 2010 to add IE-specific support using conditional comments to load stylesheets with fixes for a known IE version.

You probably still have nightmares of these: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537512(v=vs.85).a...

On the way to 2012 it became clear once Microsoft said they never intended to let IE announce itself as IE in the future that the game was finally over for UA sniffing. The funniest part was I still remember the MS fanboy blog post that was saying how wonderful it would be that future versions of IE would identify itself as not IE, and how this would make the world a better place. :P

[jszymborski]

You don't have to include the whole library. Modernizr allows you to customize the package to only detect for features you need.

While writing your own feature detection is still probably lightweight (although not by much if you customize modernizr correctly), you're not going to get all the edgecases Modernizr will unless you spend A LOT of time on it.

http://modernizr.com/download/

[err4nt]

I get the tradeoff, the problem is when you have 90 projects that customize the library for 90 different needs, and then you want to update those libraries. At that point, you've basically made 90 Modernizr forks. Does it make more sense for you to maintain 90 forks of a library whose codebase you aren't developing and try to keep them current, or to bake-in the parts of Modernizr (with its edge-cases included) right into your codebase for each project, and then only have to maintain your own codebase, instead of your codebase + a library fork.

If you're using the majority of Modernizr tests it makes sense to use the full library, but for the most part me and the other devs I've talked to usually drop the whole library in for ease of maintenance, but mainly use it for one feature alone: touchscreen detection.

Lately I've tried putting some of my HTML on a diet by replacing my need for Modernizr for the purpose of touschreen detection with this snippet:

    if(('ontouchstart' in window)||(navigator.msMaxTouchPoints>0)){
      // code for touchscreens here…
    }

This keeps the test and the result together in the code, and eliminates the need for a library, which can also be an additional single-point-of-failure outside of your control, especially if hosted by a CDN.

[robotfelix]

It's worth noting that each custom build includes a commented line with a URL to download the latest version with the same custom set of detects. A great timesaver!

[chc]

If you're "baking in" parts of Modernizr into your codebase, it seems to me you're still maintaining 90 forks, but it's more work and the provenance of the forked code is less clear.

[err4nt]

Suppose you're baking a cake, but it's a custom cake and you're not 100% sure you have the best recipe for frosting.

Suppose Modernizr were a book, and each feature Modernizr tests for was a recipe. What I'm suggesting is this: Instead of going to the library and checking out the entire recipe book just to refer to the icing recipe, just copy out the list of ingredients and leave the book on the shelf. you're customizing the recipe anyway, so if you just add their list of ingredients to the steps you're writing for your own customized icing it's going to be easier in the future than if you write your recipe steps with a little note that says: 'refer to ingredients on page 24 of Modernizr Cookbook'. I also think buying a personal copy of the book for the same purpose is overkill - it makes more sense just to list the specific ingredients you want to reference directly inside the new recipe you are writing and keep it all on the same page, plus not have to worry about where that recipe book is every time you want to whip up a new batch of icing.

[chc]

How is generating a customized Modernizr build with just the tests you need equivalent to checking out an entire recipe book for one recipe? Either way, you are just getting the tests you need.

[endgame]

Testing for features over platforms was known to be a good idea since the early days of autoconf (1991-1992, according to the history in its info file). Why did the web folk take so long to figure this out?

[err4nt]

For the most part it didn't matter until recently.

Netscape versus IE (late 90's) - features didn't matter, they just rendered HTML and CSS differently

Firefox versus IE (early 00's) - Firefox added a bunch of great CSS support and things like rounded corners and PNG transparency, so once we could use those we could just supply a polyfill for the specific IE version that needed it. Opera could handle it already, Netscape was Firefox rebranded. Only IE (which announced itself as IE) needed extra help

Mobile vs Desktop (late 00's) iPhone! Android! Tablets! Now is where things start to get a little crazy, IE will be IE but a bigger concern is the separation between tiny little touchscreen devices browsing a website, and a massive desktop computer

Mobile versus Mobile (early 10's) - IE never says it's IE, we have smart watches, phones, phablets, tablets, netbooks, notebooks, and still desktops. There is Firefox, and Chrome that run on Mac, Windows, Linux, iOs, and Android, there's Safari which runs on OS X, Windows (old version), and iOS, there's IE, of which there are 8,9,10,11 and the new ones in circulation, and a handful of other browsers like Android browser that kind of gave up a long time ago but are still used.

I'm sure backend software was rife with feature-detection for the OS's it ran on (Redhat versus CentOS, special support for IIS, etc) but until things exploded after the iPhone was released in 2007 the web had very predictable deficiencies that could be addressed more directly than feature detection.

I can remember as a Linux user, there were plenty of websites that would only let 'approved' User-Agents in, because they would rather you NOT see their site than see a site in a browser they didn't support. When using Linux I often didn't have access to IE or Netscape, so I would use Firefox or Konqueuror to spoof a different User-Agent. Nintendo.com used to be like this, plus others.

[oldmanjay]

1) it didn't take "web folks" long. It was near immediately after the availability of the browser as an application platform that the advice took hold to those willing to heed it.

2) The existence of autoconf et al is not in any way preventing people from performing platform tests all over the place, so it's not like a panacea.

Sorry if you find this a bit abrasively worded, I aimed to avoid that, but you made me bristly with your implication that "web folk" are somehow lesser.

[ucho]

Autotools don't only check for features, it also checks for bugs. For example I know that Firefox SVG support is buggy and I need to use Canvas version of OpenLayers for that browser - how am I supposed to do it without UA sniffing?