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

Lightpanda migrate DOM implementation to Zig

lightpanda.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 144 posts

Re: Lightpanda migrate DOM implementation to Zig

#31

Post by pron »

pjmlp wrote: post #4
barishnamazov wrote: post #2

This reminds me of the Servo project's journey. Always impressed to see another implementation of the WHATWG specs. It's interesting to see Zig being chosen here over Rust for a browser engine component. Rust has kind of become the default answer for "safe browser components" (e.g., Servo, Firefox's oxidation), primarily because the borrow checker maps so well to the ownership model of a DOM tree in theory. But in pr…

And use-after-free, when that arena's memory goes away.

But arenas have substantial benefits. They may be one of the few remaining reasons to use a low-level (or "systems programming") language in the first place. Most things are tradeoffs, and the question isn't what you're giving up, but whether you're getting the most for what you're paying.

Re: Lightpanda migrate DOM implementation to Zig

#32

Post by vegabook »

quotemstr wrote: post #14
fbouvier wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I am Francis, founder of Lightpanda. We wrote a full article explaining why we choose Zig over Rust or C++, if you are interested: https://lightpanda.io/blog/posts/why-we-built-lightpanda-in-... Our goal is to build a headless browser, rather than a general purpose browser like Servo or Chrome. It's already available if you would like to try it: https://lightpanda.io/docs/open-source/installation

Choosing something like Zig over C++ on simplicity grounds is going to be a false economy. C++ features exist for a reason . The complexity is in the domain. You can't make a project simpler by using a simplistic language: the complexity asserts itself somehow, somewhere, and if a language can't express the concept you want, you'll end up with circumlocution "patterns" instead. Build system complexity disappears when…

C++ features for complexity management are not ergonomic though, with multiple conflicting ideas from different eras competing with each other. Sometimes demolition and rebuild from foundations is paradoxically simpler.

Re: Lightpanda migrate DOM implementation to Zig

#34

Post by pron »

7bit wrote: post #24
barishnamazov wrote: post #2

This reminds me of the Servo project's journey. Always impressed to see another implementation of the WHATWG specs. It's interesting to see Zig being chosen here over Rust for a browser engine component. Rust has kind of become the default answer for "safe browser components" (e.g., Servo, Firefox's oxidation), primarily because the borrow checker maps so well to the ownership model of a DOM tree in theory. But in pr…

> without fighting the compiler It's unfortunate that "writing safe code" is constantly being phrased in this way. The borrow checker is a deterministic safety net. Claiming Zig is easier ignores that its lack of safety checks is what makes it feel easier; if Zig had Rust’s guarantees, the complexity would be the same. Comparing them like this is apples vs. oranges.

That's a very narrow way of looking at things. ATS has a much stronger "deterministic safety net" than Rust, yet the reason to use Rust over ATS is that "fighting the compiler" is easier in Rust than in ATS. On the other hand, if any cost is worth whatever level of safety Rust offers for any project, than Rust wouldn't exist because there are far more popular languages with equal (or better) safety. So Rust's design itself is an admission that 1. more compile-time safety is always better, even if it complicates the language (or everyone who uses Rust should use ATS), and 2. any cost is worth paying for safety (or Rust wouldn't exist in the first place).

Safety has some value that isn't infinite, and a cost that isn't zero. There are also different kinds of safety with different value and different costs. For example, spatial memory safety appears to have more value than temporal safety (https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/archive/2025/2025_cwe_top25.html) and Zig offers spatial safety. The question is always what you're paying and what you're getting in return. There doesn't appear to be a universal right answer. For some projects it may be worth it to pay for more safety, and for other it may be better to pay for something else.

Re: Lightpanda migrate DOM implementation to Zig

#35

Post by kryps »

IshKebab wrote: post #10
barishnamazov wrote: post #2

This reminds me of the Servo project's journey. Always impressed to see another implementation of the WHATWG specs. It's interesting to see Zig being chosen here over Rust for a browser engine component. Rust has kind of become the default answer for "safe browser components" (e.g., Servo, Firefox's oxidation), primarily because the borrow checker maps so well to the ownership model of a DOM tree in theory. But in pr…

I don't think it's really that bad in Rust. If you're happy with an arena in Zig you can do exactly the same thing in Rust. There are a ton of options listed here: https://donsz.nl/blog/arenas/ Some of them even prevent use after free (the "ABA mitigation" column).

No, you can't do the same thing in Rust, because Rust crates and the standard library generally use the global allocator and not any arena you want to use in your code.

Re: Lightpanda migrate DOM implementation to Zig

#36

Post by anal_reactor »

pron wrote: post #29
barishnamazov wrote: post #2

This reminds me of the Servo project's journey. Always impressed to see another implementation of the WHATWG specs. It's interesting to see Zig being chosen here over Rust for a browser engine component. Rust has kind of become the default answer for "safe browser components" (e.g., Servo, Firefox's oxidation), primarily because the borrow checker maps so well to the ownership model of a DOM tree in theory. But in pr…

I don't think that a language that was meant to compete with C++ and in 10+ years hasn't captured 10% of C++'s (already diminished) market share could be said to have become "kind of the default" for anything (and certainly not when that requires generalising from n≅1).

The problem is that the number of browser engines is n=2.

Re: Lightpanda migrate DOM implementation to Zig

#37

Post by pjmlp »

pron wrote: post #31
pjmlp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And use-after-free, when that arena's memory goes away.

But arenas have substantial benefits. They may be one of the few remaining reasons to use a low-level (or "systems programming") language in the first place. Most things are tradeoffs, and the question isn't what you're giving up, but whether you're getting the most for what you're paying.

Arenas are also available in languages with automatic memory management, e.g. D, C# and Swift, to use only modern languages as example.

Thus I don't consider that a reason good enough for using Zig, while throwing away the safety from modern languages.

Post reply on HN