Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arbitrarily running x86 machine code fetched over the net? Pass.
This is different than Chrome or whatever autoupdating how exactly?
WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
81–90 of 96 posts
Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
This further hits my curiosity on whether or not there are any examples of "cleanly designed" systems that have "won" in the long run. Am I just growing cynical? I still harbour feelings that something in the discipline of webkit offers lessons. I just don't know if I can see it myself. Outside of the lessons of brute force being a good tool. (Where I'm assuming there is a lot of force behind webkit.) (I do understan…
I think the causation runs the other way. When something becomes popular, there's pressure to improve it (or, arguably, "improve" it). That leads to more features, which leads to more code, which leads to a messier, more complicated codebase. This is all good for users - it takes complexity out of the usage of a feature and puts it inside the software, where it belongs. The problem occurs because this process continu…
It isn't even that I disagree. Just that "everything is terrible" is not a recipe for a happy day for me. For the most part, everything is bloody awesome. The details just aren't as clean as some would have hoped.
Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
#83Wow. Good luck there. For the last year or so I've had the distinct pleasure of patching and building WebKit for a project. Some observations about the WebKit codebase... First off, man is it huge. There's a link stage that uses ~4GB of memory. The command line for that link is so long I needed a patched version of make [1]. Why the WebKit devs haven't knuckled under the pain and broken out multiple smaller libraries…
Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With how widespread the use of webkit is, I would have thought it was among the more cleanly designed pieces of software out there. Sadly being widespread is no guarantee of clean design ;) WebKit, like other browser engines, was originally designed in the 90's, and evolved over a long period of time. Again like the others, it's a large and complex C++ codebase, with all the good and bad that comes with that. WebKi…
This further hits my curiosity on whether or not there are any examples of "cleanly designed" systems that have "won" in the long run. Am I just growing cynical? I still harbour feelings that something in the discipline of webkit offers lessons. I just don't know if I can see it myself. Outside of the lessons of brute force being a good tool. (Where I'm assuming there is a lot of force behind webkit.) (I do understan…
The Linux kernel comes to mind.
Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would point out Qt as a very well and cleanly designed project that "won" as in it's one of the if not the top GUI frameworks out there. http://qt-project.org/
Is it actually all that widespread if you consider the full set of all apps on all platforms? The impression I get is that the majority of apps don't use any cross-platform GUI framework and instead use the native API of the platform - Win32 for pre-XP Windows, .NET for Vista+ Windows, Cocoa for Macintosh, GTK or KDE for Linux, HTML/CSS/JS for the Web, native Android for Android, native iOS for iOS, etc.
http://dot.kde.org/sites/dot.kde.org/files/kf5_big_0.png
Qt is also used by a few "big" software and as the default toolkit for BB10, Jolla and Mer (totaling a nice 1% market share ;) ). It is also seen as the successor to Motif for large scientific applications.
Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
#86Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
#87Wow. Good luck there. For the last year or so I've had the distinct pleasure of patching and building WebKit for a project. Some observations about the WebKit codebase... First off, man is it huge. There's a link stage that uses ~4GB of memory. The command line for that link is so long I needed a patched version of make [1]. Why the WebKit devs haven't knuckled under the pain and broken out multiple smaller libraries…
Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
#88Wow. Good luck there. For the last year or so I've had the distinct pleasure of patching and building WebKit for a project. Some observations about the WebKit codebase... First off, man is it huge. There's a link stage that uses ~4GB of memory. The command line for that link is so long I needed a patched version of make [1]. Why the WebKit devs haven't knuckled under the pain and broken out multiple smaller libraries…
The link stage is pretty huge. It currently won't compile with emscripten with debug symbols, in-fact the entire obj-pre-link stage is 8.9GB of "bytecode". There really isn't a layout algorithm but it does seem like overtime they began to contain it as to make it not platform dependent (thank god). I think that the major achievement of webkit wasn't in the code they took from KHTML ;) but in the unit tests that were…
WebKit's entire Source directory is 247MB, and more than 100MB of that is ChangeLog files.
Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit
#89Everyone hates javascript ! Quick, let's all use javascript !