3 ms·
Part of the problem is that APIs that are good for extensions are by definition bad for performance (because they allow the extension to hook into important pla
by staktrace 9y ago
Part of the problem is that APIs that are good for extensions are by definition bad for performance (because they allow the extension to hook into important places and do a lot of things). So there is an inherent tradeoff between extension functionality and browser performance. It's easy to ask for powerful extension APIs because the ask is free. Would you still ask for it if you had to sacrifice performance? (The answer writ large, as evidenced by hordes of Chrome users, is no).
- pasbesoin 9y agoYes. Because the way I use Firefox, together with extensions, is actually much more performant that e.g. stock Chrome -- or Chrome with the extensions it supports, as far as I know and understand.
- int_19h 9y agoSure. Why would I want two browsers that make identical compromises? It makes choice meaningless.
- staktrace 9y agoThere are more tradeoffs involved in building a browser than just "powerful extensions vs browser performance". So you have a false assumption built into your question, that the two browsers in question are making identical compromises across all facets of things when that is in fact not the case. And there are more than two browsers - if you do want a browser that still supports powerful extensions at the cost of browser performance, I hear Pale Moon is a good option (I haven't used it myself, so can't comment).