WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#1

Post by bpierre » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 5:56 PM UTC

WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
github.com

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#2

Post by rubiquity » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:21 PM UTC

I remember this being an April Fools' Day joke[0] in 2012. Interesting to see it coming alive. I imagine it will be a pretty large file size so it might not be practical for a little bit longer, especially for mobile devices.

0 - http://badassjs.com/post/20294238453/webkit-js-yes-it-has-fi...

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#3

Post by nmc » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:26 PM UTC

OK, I understand how this could allow more interoperability, and maybe lead to a few new features in browsers.

But could anyone summarize the real interest of such a project? I really cannot see it.

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#4

Post by sathishmanohar » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:28 PM UTC

Now firefox can run chrome inside firefox, but chrome can't run firefox inside chrome.

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#5

Post by talles » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:29 PM UTC

[ insert obligatory Atwood's Law quote here ]

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#6

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:29 PM UTC

rubiquity wrote: post #2

I remember this being an April Fools' Day joke[0] in 2012. Interesting to see it coming alive. I imagine it will be a pretty large file size so it might not be practical for a little bit longer, especially for mobile devices. 0 - http://badassjs.com/post/20294238453/webkit-js-yes-it-has-fi...

[deleted]

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#7

Post by azakai » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:29 PM UTC

sathishmanohar wrote: post #4

Now firefox can run chrome inside firefox, but chrome can't run firefox inside chrome.

until gecko.js

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#8

Post by devongovett » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

rubiquity wrote: post #2

I remember this being an April Fools' Day joke[0] in 2012. Interesting to see it coming alive. I imagine it will be a pretty large file size so it might not be practical for a little bit longer, especially for mobile devices. 0 - http://badassjs.com/post/20294238453/webkit-js-yes-it-has-fi...

Yup, author of that post here. I was pretty surprised to see the vaporware of 2 years ago come alive this morning. http://badassjs.com/post/73526882798/webkit-js-its-happening...

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#9

Post by agumonkey » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:32 PM UTC

talles wrote: post #5

[ insert obligatory Atwood's Law quote here ]

This is one very obvious instance I failed to anticipate though.

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#10

Post by TheMakeA » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 6:36 PM UTC

I may be the only one excited about this, but I think it's awesome.

I imagine a future where a "web browser" is just a WebGL + Networking + JS API, and you just load in HTML5.js. The benefit of something like this is that it puts the power back in the hands of the people. You don't have to worry about Microsoft ignoring standards, you just load in the HTML5.js that you know works. Want a new feature? Fork HTML5.js on GitHub.

One other benefit that interests me is for games. Games badly need a free, standardized way to do UI. Porting v8 + WebGL is far easier than porting an entire web browser. There's a chance for greater performance too, since frameworks like ChromiumEmbedded typically only provide a memory buffer of the rendered frame, which you then have to copy (back) to vram.

(reposted because the other thread was killed)