Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25 Years of Dillo

dillo-browser.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#71

Post by wing-_-nuts »

johnklos wrote: post #67

On a 25 MHz m68040 running modern NetBSD, dillo runs well, all things considered. I think many people would be surprised how usable it is.

In college (2002-2008), my computer was often 'whatever the hell I could get my hands on'. My laptop died, so I wound up borrowing my parent's 500mhz pentium with 64 mb of ram as my 'college machine'. Shockingly, it could actually run firefox at the time.

Anyway, this meant that I didn't have a computer when I visited them. The only one left in the house was a 486 with 24 mb of ram. What's an enterprising coder to do? Did I really want to leave my cs homework until I returned? No! So I put slackware on it, and let me tell you dillo ran wonderfully, at least well enough to pull up javadocs. I'd edit my src files locally, ssh into my uni's unix lab, transfer the src files there and compile. This workflow was surprisingly productive, or maybe it was just the sheer force of will young devs have. I honestly think having to 'figure things out' with bad hardware is a great learning experience.

I am now sitting beside my workstation with 64 GB of ram and 24 gb of vram and a beefy 16 core cpu. It alone has more L3 cache on the cpu than I had ram in either machine back in the day!

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#72

Post by rubymamis »

SMP-UX wrote: post #68
zbentley wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why/how does the presence of Swift make QT a bloated piece of trash? Genuine question. I know little of QT and nothing of its history re: Swift or version 5.

Swift means it'll require LLVM. QT is bloated and resource intensive. Most of us don't want gigabytes of data being spent on special effects.

What is your definition of bloated? My note-taking app (with animations) binary is around 89MB[1][2]. And this is without statically linking it, using `-optimize-size` and `-ltcg` flags and running `strip` and `UXP` on it which should make it even smaller.

[1] https://rubymamistvalove.com/block-editor#8-performance

[2] https://get-notes.com/

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#73

Post by rgreekguy »

Dillo's spotty (commit) history reminds me of GrafX2's (http://grafx2.chez.com) history. An editor inspired from a famous Amiga editor, that has been in development on and off throughout its life. Pixel art to the core, and very opinionated editor, but it's been a few years since I last touched it.

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#74

Post by int_19h »

rubymamis wrote: post #72
SMP-UX wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swift means it'll require LLVM. QT is bloated and resource intensive. Most of us don't want gigabytes of data being spent on special effects.

What is your definition of bloated? My note-taking app (with animations) binary is around 89MB[1][2]. And this is without statically linking it, using `-optimize-size` and `-ltcg` flags and running `strip` and `UXP` on it which should make it even smaller. [1] https://rubymamistvalove.com/block-editor#8-performance [2] https://get-notes.com/

I'm not OP, but 90Mb for a note taking app is incredibly bloated.

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#75

Post by SMP-UX »

oblio wrote: post #54
fmbb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QT I can see how it is disturbing. Swift I can not see how it would bloat anything for end users. It’s just another compiled language.

> QT I can see how it is disturbing. Compared to WinUI, Android, iOS, GTk3+, let alone Electron, is there even a reason to hate/fear Qt past-2010 or so?

Motif is still a thing!!!

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#76

Post by SMP-UX »

rubymamis wrote: post #72
SMP-UX wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swift means it'll require LLVM. QT is bloated and resource intensive. Most of us don't want gigabytes of data being spent on special effects.

What is your definition of bloated? My note-taking app (with animations) binary is around 89MB[1][2]. And this is without statically linking it, using `-optimize-size` and `-ltcg` flags and running `strip` and `UXP` on it which should make it even smaller. [1] https://rubymamistvalove.com/block-editor#8-performance [2] https://get-notes.com/

Nedit takes like 6M on a Linux machine.

Older and lighter toolkits like fltk are better.

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#77

Post by SMP-UX »

int_19h wrote: post #74
rubymamis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your definition of bloated? My note-taking app (with animations) binary is around 89MB[1][2]. And this is without statically linking it, using `-optimize-size` and `-ltcg` flags and running `strip` and `UXP` on it which should make it even smaller. [1] https://rubymamistvalove.com/block-editor#8-performance [2] https://get-notes.com/

I'm not OP, but 90Mb for a note taking app is incredibly bloated.

Exactly. People think it's okay to waste memory just because.

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#78

Post by NoboruWataya »

I tried to use Dillo on some news websites (like bbc.co.uk or rte.ie) and they didn't render very well, which is not so much a criticism of Dillo but of the fact that even websites who main job is to display simple textual content and maybe some images have managed to complicate their UIs enough that lightweight browsers struggle to display them.

A common problem seems to be pages that display different content snippets in containers side-by-side, rather than in a more traditional list format (which Dillo seems to handle better). Another one is hidden menus (behind a hamburger button) which many lightweight browsers display by default, in list format, so that at the top of every page there is a long list down the left hand side (or in the centre) that you have to scroll past to see the actual content. I have this problem with elinks as well.

HN looks great though!

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#79

Post by gosub100 »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #78

I tried to use Dillo on some news websites (like bbc.co.uk or rte.ie) and they didn't render very well, which is not so much a criticism of Dillo but of the fact that even websites who main job is to display simple textual content and maybe some images have managed to complicate their UIs enough that lightweight browsers struggle to display them. A common problem seems to be pages that display different content snipp…

I honestly don't throw this phase out there lightly so please don't roll your eyes, but this would be an ideal application for AI. "See all this neatly formatted text? Yeah do your deep learning thing and make this ugly text look like this neatly formatted text. Bonus if you make all the adds look like blurry blobs but always show images that are part of the article"

Re: 25 Years of Dillo

#80

Post by agumonkey »

dillo makes me remember how snappy and light web ~browsing could be

would only takes a few features (ergonomics and hooks) to be a daily driver, especially for non entertainment usage

Post reply on HN