Add warning to browser recipe

[lukechilds]

Ok so since writing browser-env I have come up with a cleaner solution, window.It's been working well for me so far and resolves some of the issues raised in #1092.

However, it requires a small code change and is only viable for smaller modules without lots of dependencies that also require a browser environment. For other modules you'll still need browser-env. For that reason I think it would be best to continue to recommend browser-env, but highlight the issues raised in #1092 and offer window as a possible alternative.

Happy to change the wording, just pretty much copied it over from what I've got in the browser-env readme.

[novemberborn]

window looks neat!

I wonder if the recipe could start with that, and then lay out why (though ideal) it's not always a good fit. With the caveat that could lead up to browser-env. This way perhaps people realize window is indeed sufficient.

What do you think?

[lukechilds]

Thanks :)

I considered that but decided it was best to leave as is because, while window is definitely the ideal solution, it's only viable if they aren't using 3rd party browser-only modules and if they're happy to make a slight modification to their module. I think that instantly removes a large chunk of the people that will be reading the recipe.

Also I think it could cause some confusion to less advanced users. They may try and use window not understanding why they should be using browser-env and get cryptic a is not defined errors from minified browser libs. I think browser-env should be the default because it'll always work and then the users who are able to use window can opt in.

[novemberborn]

Fair enough.