First of all, sorry for my misplaced comment
(I felt bad yesterday, and I thought you will never notice my hidden comment). I'm glad to see that you are open minded and that you appreciate my time, and there is no hurry (take your time to make the decision). My initial worries were that you could have been using 'ECMAScript 6' on purpose, as part of the massive '
browser planned obsolescence' there is currently going on (but now after reading your comments I notice that I was wrong, so, sorry again for my comment). Feel free to take whatever decision you think is best.
What kind of use you make of your XP computer? Is it a media server? a secondary computer? a primary computer?
One of them I used them a media server on WinXP (for local sharing files, offline), but I also have one WinXP online (with a firewall) as one of my primary computers (that PC is used as client of the offline PC), and then I have another much faster PC only for gaming and specific applications, loaded with Win7 (but it's mostly turned off, because it's too noisy to have it on 24/7, and mostly offline).
Does your template work well with that browser (Chrome 31) ?
It does!
it works perfect not only with Chrome 31 but even with Chrome 19! (as well it works fine with Firefox 24, Firefox 31, K-Meleon Web Browser 75, and others I've tested). Of course it doesn't work with Firefox 3.x or IE6, but nobody use them nowadays.
don't rush, my dear Opinions are mostly made by experience. Everybody's experience is limited and doesn't always produce the best of results. [...] I think it's the result of coming to conclusions too fast.
I agree, and it's something I work every day on being better. I'm somewhat "passional", in the meaning of sometimes I take decisions 'being carried away by feelings or thoughts, without rationally thinking about the consequences' (I took definition from the dictionary).
because older javascript is a boring Language. Even when i was using it i had made a function myself trying to emulate the => arrow functions.
That explains all!
and it was my mistake thinking it was on purpose (part of the '
planned obsolescence' that is currently happening on many things). Sorry for my mistake.
I thank you for your hard work, i undertand it was very long, but the decision should not be made on the number of hours. Do you agree with this?
Absolutely! Feel free to take whatever decision you think is best.
I have a possible solution to all this: perhaps this could be fixed doing a small routine, that detects if the browser doesn't support "the => arrow functions" (or other 'ECMAScript 6' expressions), and then it 'dynamically translates' those functions/expressions with older JavaScript code. Doing this, you only do that routine once, and you don't have to change every function.
What do you think?...