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

WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#91

Post by tolmasky »

sigil wrote: post #66

Wow. 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…

These concerns resonate a bit with Google's explanation for Blink. Really excited to see what comes out of that.

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#93

Post by e12e »

azakai wrote: post #70
taeric wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually surprises me some. With how widespread the use of webkit is, I would have thought it was among the more cleanly designed pieces of software out there. Anyone have any good pointers on an analysis of the code base? Any easy way to just "dive in" to the code other than the obvious checkout and look around?

> 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…

Just another reason I found it strange that Opera dumped their browser engine for webkit. I suppose it might look even worse..

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#94

Post by kelvin0 »

TheMakeA wrote: post #10

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…

You should look at some reasearch done ny James Mickens: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=1546...

http://www.slideserve.com/illias/atlantis-robust-extensible-...

Of course this is not something that is going to be useable anytime soon, but it hints at an interesting architecture.

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#95

Post by taeric »

dougk16 wrote: post #84
taeric wrote: post #71

Earlier 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…

"...any examples of "cleanly designed" systems that have "won" in the long run" The Linux kernel comes to mind.

Does this count as "cleanly" designed in the way most software engineering types put it forward? I mean, it flat out went against what was seen as "cleanly designed" when it was created. And even now espouses a monolithic code base over the microkernel designs.

That is to say, in my mind it was one of the counter examples to the idealistic "cleanly designed" solutions.

Re: WebKit.js: Pure JavaScript Port of WebKit

#96

Post by ffrryuu »

scelerat wrote: post #79
rjzzleep wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i really hope i'm not just part of a distinct few, that think html, and js are not the future at all, but some old junk, that is unnecessarily being blown up out of proportions, just because at the time the wasn't anything better as an alternative.

seconded. this stuff is my bread and butter yet I often think, this is the best we can do?

Yes
Post reply on HN