4 ms·

I'm on this rust hype train for a long time. This move by mozilla is probably going to be the biggest success story that might give rust a lot of attention. I h

I'm on this rust hype train for a long time. This move by mozilla is probably going to be the biggest success story that might give rust a lot of attention. I hope the new engine is fast as heck and uses less battery in all my devices. Please!

krylon 10y ago
If performance is not competitive, it will not be much of a success story, but it will be more interesting to see how much better it will be in terms of security issues.
- viraptor 10y ago
  It was better 2 years ago (with caveats) - https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTgzNDA https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTgzNDA But there's definitely place for speed gains due to multithreading.
  - k__ 10y ago
    After years of the multicore hype, we finally can reap its benefits.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"If performance is not competitive" I don't think this will be a problem. One example... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTURkjYJ_uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTURkjYJ_uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erfnCaeLxSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erfnCaeLxSI
Grue3 10y ago
Not if in the process they'll make all the existing add-ons incompatible and therefore lose all their remaining market share.
- JD557 10y ago
  I disagree. If they are able to deliver a browser that's much faster and consumes less battery, I believe that would be enough to make a lot of users change their browser. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm not a good example, but I the only add-ons that I have installed that I really care about is 1password (which is easy to live without, as I can use the stand-alone application) and HTTPS everywhere (which just means that I have to be extra careful when browsing). I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of internet users that do not even have add-ons in their browsers, but I doubt that there's any user who would not care about browser speed/battery life.
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    AFAIK, about 40% of Firefox users don't have any add-ons.
    - WorldMaker 10y ago
      Furthermore, the recent e10s transition was already tree shake of the long tail of ancient add-ons in terms of how many still had old bindings and used ancient versions of the NPAPI. Then there is the fact that every other browser has, or is in the process, dropped any notion of direct native add-on APIs and an increasing majority of actively developed add-ons for all browsers is now modern "Chrome-style" JS+HTML components.
      - dblohm7 10y ago
        You seem to be confusing NPAPI plugins with browser extensions. Firefox doesn't allow addons that contain binary XPCOM components anymore. Everything has to be JS, whether the addon is XPCOM based, addon SDK (JetPack) based, or WebExtensions-based. NPAPI is deprecated and is to the point where it is only used for Flash.
        WorldMaker 10y ago
        Sorry, yes I was using NPAPI as a handwaving shorthand for both NPAPI and binary XPCOM to save time. I appreciate the extra technical detail, though. (Because technically correct is the best kind of correct.)

krylon 10y ago

If performance is not competitive, it will not be much of a success story, but it will be more interesting to see how much better it will be in terms of security issues.

viraptor 10y ago
It was better 2 years ago (with caveats) - https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTgzNDA https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTgzNDA But there's definitely place for speed gains due to multithreading.
- k__ 10y ago
  After years of the multicore hype, we finally can reap its benefits.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"If performance is not competitive" I don't think this will be a problem. One example... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTURkjYJ_uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTURkjYJ_uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erfnCaeLxSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erfnCaeLxSI

Grue3 10y ago

Not if in the process they'll make all the existing add-ons incompatible and therefore lose all their remaining market share.

JD557 10y ago
I disagree. If they are able to deliver a browser that's much faster and consumes less battery, I believe that would be enough to make a lot of users change their browser. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm not a good example, but I the only add-ons that I have installed that I really care about is 1password (which is easy to live without, as I can use the stand-alone application) and HTTPS everywhere (which just means that I have to be extra careful when browsing). I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of internet users that do not even have add-ons in their browsers, but I doubt that there's any user who would not care about browser speed/battery life.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  AFAIK, about 40% of Firefox users don't have any add-ons.
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    Furthermore, the recent e10s transition was already tree shake of the long tail of ancient add-ons in terms of how many still had old bindings and used ancient versions of the NPAPI. Then there is the fact that every other browser has, or is in the process, dropped any notion of direct native add-on APIs and an increasing majority of actively developed add-ons for all browsers is now modern "Chrome-style" JS+HTML components.
    - dblohm7 10y ago
      You seem to be confusing NPAPI plugins with browser extensions. Firefox doesn't allow addons that contain binary XPCOM components anymore. Everything has to be JS, whether the addon is XPCOM based, addon SDK (JetPack) based, or WebExtensions-based. NPAPI is deprecated and is to the point where it is only used for Flash.
      - WorldMaker 10y ago
        Sorry, yes I was using NPAPI as a handwaving shorthand for both NPAPI and binary XPCOM to save time. I appreciate the extra technical detail, though. (Because technically correct is the best kind of correct.)