12 ms·

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! XUL is really cool. Still one of my favorite GUI kits. It is like electron (but actually native!) and had a good reason to be slow

by tomc1985 9y ago

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! XUL is really cool. Still one of my favorite GUI kits. It is like electron (but actually native!) and had a good reason to be slow (spidermonkey wasn't super fast) :( XPCOM kinda sucked but it is still better than MS COM

adjagu 9y ago
I miss the old easter eggs Firefox had. https://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul https://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.x...
- sp332 9y ago
  about:mozilla still works.
  - DrPhish 9y ago
    about:about shows that about:robots still works, at least
    - adjagu 9y ago
      Thank you. I hadn't seen the about:robots page before.
  - cpeterso 9y ago
    and about:robots
    - adjagu 9y ago
      Thank you for this. At least we can hope that Mozilla's version of SkyNet should at least be human friendly.
  - adjagu 9y ago
    Thank you for this. I had forgotten about the about: pages.
sp332 9y ago
It's not that XUL was bad, exactly. But priorities have changed to security, battery life, and multi-threaded performance. The weight of XUL cruft that has built up over time was holding the project back.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  Do you think using XML external entities declared in DTD files for localization was a good idea? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Tutorial/Localization https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Tu...
DonHopkins 9y ago
How was XPCOM better than MS COM? Feature set? Nope. Tooling? Nope. Language support? Nope. Ecosystem? Nope. OLE components? Nope. Distributed COM? Nope. Doesn't trigger knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reactionaries even though it's a shallow clone of Microsoft technology? Check. Did you know that "decomification" was a word? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194385 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194385
- tomc1985 9y ago
  XPCOM was better mainly because it was Mozilla docs instead of Microsoft. I was doing MS COM in a previous job and I swear MSDN is written in sanskrit

adjagu 9y ago

I miss the old easter eggs Firefox had. https://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul https://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.x...

sp332 9y ago
about:mozilla still works.
- DrPhish 9y ago
  about:about shows that about:robots still works, at least
  - adjagu 9y ago
    Thank you. I hadn't seen the about:robots page before.
- cpeterso 9y ago
  and about:robots
  - adjagu 9y ago
    Thank you for this. At least we can hope that Mozilla's version of SkyNet should at least be human friendly.
- adjagu 9y ago
  Thank you for this. I had forgotten about the about: pages.

sp332 9y ago

It's not that XUL was bad, exactly. But priorities have changed to security, battery life, and multi-threaded performance. The weight of XUL cruft that has built up over time was holding the project back.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DonHopkins 9y ago
Do you think using XML external entities declared in DTD files for localization was a good idea? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Tutorial/Localization https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Tu...

DonHopkins 9y ago

How was XPCOM better than MS COM? Feature set? Nope. Tooling? Nope. Language support? Nope. Ecosystem? Nope. OLE components? Nope. Distributed COM? Nope. Doesn't trigger knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reactionaries even though it's a shallow clone of Microsoft technology? Check. Did you know that "decomification" was a word? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194385 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194385

tomc1985 9y ago
XPCOM was better mainly because it was Mozilla docs instead of Microsoft. I was doing MS COM in a previous job and I swear MSDN is written in sanskrit