Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that monocultures are wise.
Rust has a monoculture. So firefox does/will have one
What is Rust's monoculture?
Chrome Won
461–470 of 583 posts
Re: Chrome Won
#462Interesting that there's no mention of UC Browser in this thread. I actually only learned about this browser myself today, but seems to be gaining a lot of marketshare: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268254/market-share-of-i...
Re: Chrome Won
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your hypothetical from-scratch internet, there's probably still a confy place for Google's flagship search engine. It's the ranking, it has always been the ranking. Nobody is interested in a rank of who paid the most for each keyword.
Sorry, the point was you can still rank them but you can build it into the system itself instead of having to parse it out or reverse engineer any information.
So one of the most complex algorithms in the world was supposed to be built-in in your hypothetical internet protocol?
Re: Chrome Won
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do wonder how much of that is the browser's fault, and how much is because of website developers not understanding that we have a website obesity problem[0], nor the concept of "optimizing for fan noise"[1]. I'm fairly conscientious about this myself since I'm working on plotting data, and the dumb client-side number crunching involved is actually pretty good at eating CPU cycles. Most plotting libraries want to sh…
"I do wonder how much of that is the browser's fault, and how much is because of website developers not understanding that we have a website obesity problem[0], nor the concept of "optimizing for fan noise"[1]." I think some of it is also that the web has numerous things about it that are fundamentally expensive operations, going back to things like "the default table sizing algorithm reacts to the flow of the conten…
You really nailed it with that first sentence. I can't tell you how many times I've done custom layout operations with absolute positioning that should be slow because they're being executed entirely in JS, but are much faster than the built-in layout operations. A good case in point is YouTube and its fixed header and left-hand menu: IE11 and Edge both have real problems with these fixed elements bouncing when scrolling down on the page. This is a trivial thing to implement without any visual artifacts when using absolute positioning.
Re: Chrome Won
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People forget that Microsoft made box-model No, I didn't forget. But you forgot to say that MS did all that with draft specifications or even no spec at all (XMLHttpRequest), just to beat everyone to market, then refused to correct their implementation once the standard was revised and agreed by others. And they sprinkled ActiveX on top, for good measure. > developers (and their managers) lapped it up Disagree. Dev…
> Disagree. Developers were the ones that pushed Mozilla and then Firefox (and then Chrome) as soon as they could. No, the DOM put into IE was legitimately better than that in the old NN. MS won that war because their browser was BETTER, period. They then sat on their laurels and the rest of the world passed them by, so now they're still trying to play catchup. But at the time? No, anyone who had any experience in th…
>the DOM put into IE was legitimately better than that in the old NN
Where did I mention Netscape? I didn't.
IE5 is from 1999, IE6 from 2001, and they were undoubtedly better than Navigator; but the first 0.x releases of Mozilla with the new Gecko engine are from late 2000/early 2001, and were better than IE (although the suite was slow and bloated). Firefox was branched out in 2002 and took off very quickly because it was a great engine without the bloat of full Mozilla. That's why people pushed it (or rather Phoenix) right off the bat.
If you were pushing IE6 over Mozilla or Firefox in 2001/2002, you weren't paying attention. Navigator all but died in 1999.
Re: Chrome Won
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google products, which I can't get away from, are starting to fail completely on Firefox. I've run into several other complex sites that fail on Firefox. It's sad, because I've used it for years. I'm using it right now. But my default just switched to Chrome because I started having too many Firefox issues.
The real problem is not that Firefox has issues, but that it's a small enough market share now that more and more web services can get away with not bothering to test on it.
The real problem is not that people don't test on all browsers, but that people have to test, still, on multiple browsers. The standardisation does not work well, new stuff is out constantly, vendors not independent experts control the process.
Re: Chrome Won
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rendering engines are plenty fast as it is anyway, it's CPU use and battery impact that matters to users. That's at odds with almost every single sentiment I've seen regarding native vs. Web apps. Take one look at any HN thread about the two. > And when performance does matter, it's mostly Javascript performance, which Servo doesn't address. If that were true, then there wouldn't be a performance differential betwe…
Modern JS is pretty fast yeah, but I still don't think it rivals Objective-C does it? If we stipulate it's 1/2 as fast as Swift, it's still much faster than v8 on the benchmarks game [1]. Can you be trickier with JS code than those toy programs are? [1] http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lan...
Objective-C and Swift are completely different beasts, especially on those kinds of workloads. Idiomatic Objective-C would be much worse than that.
Re: Chrome Won
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great Tolkien quote.
Well its not the same boss again. Sure Chrome has a massive market share. But even Today's MS Edge is not open. I used to work for the Edge team and the directors never really gave Open Source a serious thought. It was too tied to windows. I am glad Edge doesn't have the market share that Chrome has. Chrome works on every platform. It hogs memory but its fast. Chromium & v8 are open. This is the kind of things that g…
> Chrome works on every platform.
Except anything MIPS-based. Or Power. Or in fact anything that isn't x86 or ARM.
And it's not just a matter of compiling it for those platforms. There's a bunch of architecture-specific porting that would have to be done (e.g. you _have_ to implement a V8 backend; there is no platform-independent way to run V8 just with a C++ compiler).
Re: Chrome Won
#469So Mozilla lost Firefox OS. And their browser share is smaller then Chrome, and then it was, but still top tier and winning from M$. I'm much less pessimistic. Besides a cross platform and extensible browser we see also the following coming out of Mozilla: * Rust, a modern low-level programming language with cutting edge "safety" build in at zero runt time cost, luring many system programmers. * Servo, tomorrow brows…
I understand that people who like rust REALLY like Rust, but you do realize that your examples of a purpose for existence consist of: 1. A programming language, that hasn't yet shown "escape velocity" to go beyond D and other would-be-C++-successors in traction. 2. The only major application of that language... a pre-alpha browser engine, which may or may not eventually replace the engine in a browser that is serious…
Re: money. $400 million was too large of a number for me to comprehend. I was curious.
From FY2015, actual budget is $372 million. $227 million is applied toward investments - mutual funds, bonds, etc, presumably to ensure longevity and continuity. They paid $29 million in income taxes, $6 million in employee benefits. I can't really comprehend rest of the audit report in any practical terms I understand, but that leaves about $100 million to try to understand and rationalize (actually probably a lot less than that.)
At 1,000 employees, that's $100k per person on average, which doesn't sound so far-fetched (of course in reality it's a curve, but it suddenly doesn't look so alarming). Somewhat noteworthy, they donate about $300k/year and a full-time employee to Let's Encrypt. Which, well, I personally benefited from that, so kudos.
Re: Chrome Won
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: why do you use hundreds of tabs at the same time? Why not bookmarks and leave a couple of the most important ones open? I have never understood the use case for "hundreds" of browser tabs
If you want to be 10x, you need at least 10 stackoverflow tabs open to copy and paste from. I've always assumed people talking about having hundreds of tabs open just don't understand how to properly use a browser. My grandmother, for example, usually has 100 or so open by the time I get a call about her having computer problems. There's no logical reason I can come up with for doing this instead of using bookmarks.
Because unlike other browsers Firefox will actually search existing open tabs and present those as possible results (and open the tab if you choose it).
I have hundreds of tabs open at a time. Instead of searching for something, then going to the Google page, clicking and waiting for it to load, in Firefox I search for what I want in the bar, it presents the tab as a result and opens it instantaneously.
In addition with the vertical tab bar extensions I can see a list of about 40-50 tabs open at a time, using the additional horizontal space monitors provide that web pages don't use to keep an easily visible list of tabs.