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

The Ladybird browser project

ladybird.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 293 posts

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#101

Post by pygy_ »

sph wrote: post #70
jug wrote: post #47

It's been so inspiring to see him and his crew of hackers build a new, independent browser from scratch. I must admit I didn't think it was possible on this small scale in terms of man hours and funding. However, the thought has also crossed my mind if we're finally seeing fruits of browsers being better standardized on "95%"+ of the popular features -- and if writing a browser today is in fact easier than both writi…

It is not any easier, because we still have a monopoly running the show, only it's not called Microsoft anymore. If anyone threatens Google position, they can literally throw money at the problem, invent some overcomplicated standard, implement it in Blink, and have the competition chase them. It doesn't need to go through W3C either, if it works in Chrome, all web developers will adopt it and any smaller engine will…

This is where Apple'grip on the iOS browser engine choice paradoxically comes in clutch.

It is conceptually despicable, especially for devs, but it prevents Google from completely running the show.

Now the European Union is coming after Apple without trying to rein in Google's influence... This seems short-sighted.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#102

Post by jorvi »

LeFantome wrote: post #89
jll29 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is a world expert on Web rendering, and an extremely capable C++ developer. One of their success recipes is to code up the various specifications directly, which is - today - the best way to go about this. They are also heavily test-driven. He did not even use the C++ standard library, when he says "from scratch" it includes his own string class, for better or worse, which is fine since it's "just for fun", "to le…

I think their C++ library is one of the reasons they can create capable software so quickly actually. They have jetisoned just a tonne of C++ nonesense and added some really nice modern features such as how they handle memory and errors. Also, you would think that having to implement EVERYTHING themselves ( they are making their own image decoders as an example -- inclding SVG ) would slow them down. However, as it i…

> they are making their own image decoders as an example -- inclding SVG

Considering the vast amount of exploits that continually comes out of media decoders everywhere, this basically guarantees I will never ever use this browser.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#103

Post by autoexec »

sham1 wrote: post #77
spintin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://imgur.com/dP2c3j6 Re-inventing the wheel is not the problem. It's copying the wheel that is the problem.

As years have gone by, I've realised that the whole "don't reinvent the wheel" is fundamentally an anti-innovation and anti-intellectualist idiom. Like yeah, the idea is that the wheel already works pretty well, so you wouldn't need a better one, but really now? First of all, how would we know that we've explored all the possible ways wheels can be? How do we know whether what we have is actually the most optimal way…

> So, the ethos that one shouldn't "waste effort in writing this stuff from scratch, but that off-the-shelf components should be used" is the kind of ethos that can be applied to a lot of things. And usually when that kind of ethos is adopted, it tends to lead to stuff like stagnation and lack of innovation.

I think the advice still has its place, but only in certain contexts. You can get a lot of work done very quickly by making good use of work that others have already done for you. It's why modules and libraries are so popular.

When you've got the time to try and and improve on existing code, or when you'd have to compromise too much on what you want by using something preexisting, or when you're just learning then reinventing the wheel is invaluable.

There's a time and place for both.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#105

Post by sylware »

It seems there is zero c++ in their web engine (cannot clone their repo right now and github is spitting raw json while browsing their source code with noscript/basic (x)html browsers).

Is this true?

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#106

Post by rjh29 »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #96
rjh29 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if writing a browser today is in fact easier than both writing AND maintaining a browser a decade back. Probably not. Yeah we have web standards and some idea of how to architect it, but the total set of APIs and HTML/CSS features a browser supports is probably changing faster than the Ladybird team can actively implement it. The API surface is just impossibly large compared to 10 or 15 years ago. Look at all of th…

It's a lot of work but most of it is very doable for several reasons: - standards are really detailed at this point and a large reason why the three remaining browser engines (chromium, safari, and firefox) largely do exactly the same things. - There are a lot of open source components. It's not necessary to start from scratch on things like wasm and javascript interpreters for example. There are some nice low level…

In the case of Ladybird they build everything from scratch (intentionally) so existing open source code cannot be used.

The main argument for doing it is because it is fun, just as with SerenityOS. Having alternative implementations is never a bad thing for web diversity though.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#107

Post by Hrun0 »

pygy_ wrote: post #101
sph wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not any easier, because we still have a monopoly running the show, only it's not called Microsoft anymore. If anyone threatens Google position, they can literally throw money at the problem, invent some overcomplicated standard, implement it in Blink, and have the competition chase them. It doesn't need to go through W3C either, if it works in Chrome, all web developers will adopt it and any smaller engine will…

This is where Apple'grip on the iOS browser engine choice paradoxically comes in clutch. It is conceptually despicable, especially for devs, but it prevents Google from completely running the show. Now the European Union is coming after Apple without trying to rein in Google's influence... This seems short-sighted.

The current dispute between the EU and Apple has nothing to do with Safari though and is about the Apple store, not sure how that's relevant?

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#109

Post by jraph »

AndyKelley wrote: post #100

Is it just for fun or not? I think it's important to face this question, because users should not trust a just-for-fun browser with their security, and we should not look to Ladybird as a meaningful contribution towards competition in the browser space if it's just for fun. If it's just for fun, we need to temper our expectations accordingly.

I think it's a "just for fun" project that is getting a bit serious, and sponsored.

And that having expectations as a end user is still a bit premature.

You can expect the project to move somewhat fast.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#110

Post by pygy_ »

Hrun0 wrote: post #107
pygy_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where Apple'grip on the iOS browser engine choice paradoxically comes in clutch. It is conceptually despicable, especially for devs, but it prevents Google from completely running the show. Now the European Union is coming after Apple without trying to rein in Google's influence... This seems short-sighted.

The current dispute between the EU and Apple has nothing to do with Safari though and is about the Apple store, not sure how that's relevant?

It is my understanding that Apple losing here would prevent them from enforcing WebKit as the sole iOS browser engine. I may be mistaken.
Post reply on HN