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

Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

eev.ee

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#201

Post by beaconstudios »

toastal wrote: post #188
beaconstudios wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly it - by limiting javascript you are choosing to be in a minority of users and then demanding to be catered to. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment. These are businesses - they write code to generate profit. Their support of limited javascript has no impact on profit, so they won't do it.

Or as developers we be good stewards towards the web and the feature isn't complete until it's tested to at least not completely bug and give an error message when a script or resource isn't loaded.

If you get to unilaterally make technical decisions in your company with complete disregard for return on investment, then be my guest - but I'd look for other jobs because companies that prioritise developers complaining over profit tend to go bankrupt.

The rest of us don't want to be fired.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#202

Post by matheusmoreira »

naikrovek wrote: post #184
cookiengineer wrote: post #131

I recently started to fork webkit to make it a Webview with a reduced attack surface. [2] The most interesting part was the Quirks.cpp file [1] that contains literally randomized css classnames inside the web browser code because a major website was so shitty and spec violating in their implementations. I mean, fixing a website in a browser source code...this shit got out of hand real quick yo. The problem with all t…

> quirks.cpp this is also why video card drivers are so huge; the fixes to games made at the driver level. this kind of thing happens a lot.

Are there details about this? I've read that nvidia drivers would actually patch game code by replacing functions at runtime.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#203

Post by matheusmoreira »

cookiengineer wrote: post #131

I recently started to fork webkit to make it a Webview with a reduced attack surface. [2] The most interesting part was the Quirks.cpp file [1] that contains literally randomized css classnames inside the web browser code because a major website was so shitty and spec violating in their implementations. I mean, fixing a website in a browser source code...this shit got out of hand real quick yo. The problem with all t…

  // FIXME: Remove after the site is fixed, 
  bool Quirks::shouldHideSearchFieldResultsButton() const

    if (topPrivatelyControlledDomain(m_document->topDocument().url().host().toString()).startsWith("google."))
        return true;
I suppose it wasn't fixed...

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#205

Post by cookiengineer »

scrame wrote: post #190
cookiengineer wrote: post #131

I recently started to fork webkit to make it a Webview with a reduced attack surface. [2] The most interesting part was the Quirks.cpp file [1] that contains literally randomized css classnames inside the web browser code because a major website was so shitty and spec violating in their implementations. I mean, fixing a website in a browser source code...this shit got out of hand real quick yo. The problem with all t…

m_hasBrokenEncryptedMediaAPISupportQuirk = domain == "starz.com" || domain.endsWith(".starz.com") || domain == "youtube.com" || domain.endsWith(".youtube.com") || domain == "hulu.com" || domain.endsWith("hulu.com"); Wow I thought you were kidding.

It gets worse if you search for "microsoft.com" [1] or "bbc.co.uk" in the codebase. They literally grant cross domain storage access because Microsoft's login workflow is broken in regards to CORS headers.

I mean, imagine a developer trying to fix their code behaving completely different on iOS and they cannot have a single clue why that is the case.

Additionally, WebKit is released very late to the public (sometimes even after fixes have been rolled out to iOS)...and before that nobody from the outside can even know what's going on.

From a maintainability point of view things like this should be - in worst case - a Web Extension, but definitely not be inside a Browser source codebase.

Youtube is even worse once you dig through the Apple internal plugin replacement, which effectively implements a native C++ decoder for youtube streams on iOS because otherwise you could not watch videos there. This was done before as a WebCore plugin but has been moved around into the PluginProcess source-code wise over the last two months (and currently blocks me from merging in changes, so I have to backport fixes after I removed all legacy plugin APIs).

[1] https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/search?q=microsoft.com

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#207

Post by cookiengineer »

zild3d wrote: post #164
cookiengineer wrote: post #131

I recently started to fork webkit to make it a Webview with a reduced attack surface. [2] The most interesting part was the Quirks.cpp file [1] that contains literally randomized css classnames inside the web browser code because a major website was so shitty and spec violating in their implementations. I mean, fixing a website in a browser source code...this shit got out of hand real quick yo. The problem with all t…

this looks like a bug? [0] || domain.endsWith("hulu.com"); should be ".hulu.com", since anyone can register a hulu.com [0] https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/ce237483d034e41eff8cc5...

Note that this is very likely due to everchanging CDN domain names. If they spawn servers on demand, they're probably as messed up as googlevideo.com (which also uses hashed subdomain names).

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#208

Post by [deleted] »

naikrovek wrote: post #184
cookiengineer wrote: post #131

I recently started to fork webkit to make it a Webview with a reduced attack surface. [2] The most interesting part was the Quirks.cpp file [1] that contains literally randomized css classnames inside the web browser code because a major website was so shitty and spec violating in their implementations. I mean, fixing a website in a browser source code...this shit got out of hand real quick yo. The problem with all t…

> quirks.cpp this is also why video card drivers are so huge; the fixes to games made at the driver level. this kind of thing happens a lot.

[deleted]

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#210

Post by bzzzt »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #202
naikrovek wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> quirks.cpp this is also why video card drivers are so huge; the fixes to games made at the driver level. this kind of thing happens a lot.

Are there details about this? I've read that nvidia drivers would actually patch game code by replacing functions at runtime.

Both ATI/AMD and nVidia use all kinds of tricks to outcompete each other since gamers only look at the fps count. That means driver optimization for specific games, even dropping fidelity a bit when that means more fps. Also, nVidia has teams that take over engine code to 'help' software devs making the most of their hardware which gives them an opportunity to push specific approaches that don't work as well on their competitors cards.
Post reply on HN