Modernizr does a lot of things, and creating CSS classes to mark the existence of features is just one of those things. Another thing that Modernizr does is allow you to style new HTML5 elements like <section>, <header>, etc. - I think that there is a similar issue here, and I'm really on the fence about it. Depending on the browser to execute Javascript so that CSS is able to style a new element seems risky, and for quite a marginal benefit. I guess people are just trying to make the future happen sooner, but it seems foolish to introduce an external dependency and scripting requirement just because <header> looks better than <div class="header">. What do we really gain here by being more "semantic"? Aren't we just trading reliability for fashion?
> I guess people are just trying to make the future happen sooner
Here’s why: Encouraging people to upgrade from old IEs to newer versions by making websites generic, mundane (but still accessible) and bland for them is just about the best thing that you as a web developer can do to help move the web forward. That and experimenting with the newest technologies as much as possible and reporting bugs and other feedback to the vendors.
That's essentially what it does, but if you use the "autocd" option as well, you don't need to type "cd" - you can just use the name of a directory as a command. So, "autopushd" would ensure that these operations use the directory stack also.
A related issue is the fact that many drivers show up in the Add/Remove Programs list (or whatever they call it these days), so you can't just remove everything or you will find that your keyboard, touchpad, media card reader, etc. no longer work. Sometimes it can be really difficult to determine if a program is an essential driver or useless bloat.
It has a more conventional builder-style API that may answer the complaints of those wishing for a more straightforward way to write loops.