Originally Posted by Fedaykin
You know what's worse? They could have built it on Oracle which is 40 Year old technology
Oh, and "browser friendly HTML5"
Do you even know what HTML5 is or are you just parroting something you heard? They are
using some parts (the commonly supported ones that are actually useful to their business case) of HTML5, but to claim that HTML5 is "browser friendly" is just silly. Many common browsers *cough*IE*cough* don't even remotely support the full HTML5 spec, which isn't even finalized yet (and, stupidly, never will be by design)
! So, to be fully HTML5 buzzword compliant, they would actually be reducing the usability of the site, or having to implement multiple versions of it.
All the morons running around parroting the idiocy of "OMG they're using OOOOOLLLLLD technology" are just showing how easily the ignorant can be fooled.
The problems with that site have exactly nothing to do with using "old" technology.
There's more to this thing than a shiny front-end website. The ugly stuff is guaranteed to be locked in the back. If you've ever looked at the systems CMS uses to this very day, you'd know it to be true.