71–80 of 155 posts
So, since this is the top post on Hacker News, and the website's description is a bit too high level for me, what does Servo let me do? By "web technologies", does it mean "put a web browser inside your desktop app"?
It's a great move. The early development of Rust aimed to support Servo. However, it's still disappointing that the script engine uses SpiderMonkey, which is purely C++.
There are what, 5+ rust javascript engines that claim to be production-ready? Bolting one of those on in place of spider monkey seems like a reasonable future direction
So, since this is the top post on Hacker News, and the website's description is a bit too high level for me, what does Servo let me do? By "web technologies", does it mean "put a web browser inside your desktop app"?
It's an alternative browser engine, vis a vis Ladybird
Too little too late now that the new meta is to use system provided webviews so you don't have to ship a big ass web renderer per app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by "production ready" here exactly? In a web browser context, the JS engine is expected to have a high performance optimising JIT compiler. Do the existing Rust JS engines have that?
There's something to be said for the security benefits of not having a JIT though. Especially if you've used Rust for the engine you should have pretty solid security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I see it, the focus should not be about the coding, but about the testing, and particularly the security evaluation. Particularly for critical infrastructure, I would want us to have a testing approach that is so reliable that it wouldn't matter who/what wrote the code.
I disagree. Thorough testing provides some level of confidence that the code is correct, but there's immense value in having infrastructure which some people understand because they wrote it. No amount of process around your vibe slop can provide that.
Did firefox drop servo? I recalled they where in the progress of "rewrite in rust"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I see it, the focus should not be about the coding, but about the testing, and particularly the security evaluation. Particularly for critical infrastructure, I would want us to have a testing approach that is so reliable that it wouldn't matter who/what wrote the code.
I dont think that will ever be possible. At some point security becomes - the program does the thing the human wanted it to do but didn't realize they didn't actually want. No amount of testing can fix logic bugs due to bad specification.
But my argument is that we can work to minimize the time we spend on verifying the code-level accidental complexity.
It takes some time to get used to their DSL to write PDFs, but nowadays with AI that shouldn't take too long.