multi-account-containers VS ECMAScript 6 compatibility table

It is an extension for Firefox, but one created by Mozilla. It's official in that sense, but it does seem a little strange it's not included by default.

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/multi-account-conta...

the opposite is true, too, since "Clear History" in Chrome Profiles behaves correctly and (AFAIK) is scoped just to that Profile unlike our container friend: https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/issues/3...

I still use them because combined with https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-url-in-c... ( https://github.com/honsiorovskyi/open-url-in-container ) is a game changer for my workflow but it does make me sad that issue has been open for so long

I have about 35 tabs open, some are work tabs, some are personal tabs and others are social tabs. About 1 week ago I started having the problem that while I have the Open Containers completely draining, my CPU is at 100%. While when I close them all my CPU returns to its normal state of use 20% I see that the problem is existing. https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/issues/572 any help? I have the latest version of Firefox on Windows 10

I've been googling around for a way to recover them and it seems like this is just... a thing hat happens? And it has for years? This is intentional? What the hell?

Firefox Containers - Only if you need to use two accounts from the same website at the same time. You can change groups names and colors. When you need to open another account simultaneously just right-click the tab -> open in new conteiner -> choose one and voilá. It took me time to understand how exactly this worked but I use a lot now. Ohh and never ever never set "Aways open this tab/site in this container" this got me nuts these days. Is hard to revert if you don't really need a certain website aways on a certain container.

Can I start Firefox from the (linux mint) terminal opening a website in a particular container (using the Multi-Account Containers extension. see https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers or https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/)

Notice that not all functionality is available in brand accounts, e.g., upload your own music to YTM. There might also be some lost functionality when using the brand account at YT, but I don't know them anymore. You should also be aware that it is not easy to switch between different google accounts on PC because they use the same cookie to remember your current account. You can use a different browser for one of YT or YTM, or use add-ons like Firefox Multi-Account Containers. The different apps on android have no problem with this.

http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/

This page lists features from es6 (and newer versions linked at the top) along with compliance to the spec. First column is the current browser, second is babel+corejs polyfills.

Overall, babel gets about 70% of the way there.

Case in point: Tail Call Optimization has been part of the JS spec since ES6, but remains completely unimplemented in all mainstream browsers/engines besides Safari[1]. For all but the most predictable inputs, you're pretty much forced to use loops where recursion would otherwise be preferable.

Additional case in point: async Iterables cannot be processed as a piped stream. You must use the for await construct, which is a shame considering the FP niceties that the Array type already provides for more traditional lists. Once again, you are forced to use an imperative construct unless you specifically want to defeat the purpose of using an Iterable in the first place by trying to convert it into an Array (... and potentially choking in the process, I might add!).

[1]: https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/

Eventually the browsers started racing to near-full ES6 compatibility. I remember following ES6 progress in realtime with articles and with compatibility tables http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ . But many people are acting like that either didn't happen, or like it was a one and done thing (despite the ESNext naming shift to avoid the focus on numbers). So we see people just hand-waving away the importance of polyfills like in this gem:

> https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/

Oh man this was a rough one both for FF and Chrome but Chrome did perform better slightly on cursory glance.

Thanks for providing these links, they're definitely a good rule of thumb benchmarks to test new browsers

Javascript / CSS language syntax: can see availability for Javascript here - https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/

I say this as a JS user, but there is no singular JavaScript (realistically, it's not even JavaScript but instead ECMAScript). There is no one place to go that lays out all of what the language can or can't do the way PHP and Python do. The ECMAScript board makes recommendations, then the browsers and runtimes implement features of the recommendations. This site does a good job laying out which features are implemented for browsers and runtimes based on the flavor of the ECMAScript standard. This unique experience can be especially frustrating for someone learning JavaScript and coming from another language that does not have this problem.

https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ has a column for "current browser"