3 ms·

It's interesting to see Google build open-source tooling in this direction; catering to the developers ensures that Chrome keeps enjoying a large market share.

It's interesting to see Google build open-source tooling in this direction; catering to the developers ensures that Chrome keeps enjoying a large market share. Google has made serious efforts here and as a web developer, Chrome's tools are by far some of the best I've seen (with an honorable mention to FX's tools for Flexbox & Grid).

pjmlp 8y ago
Including "Works best on Chrome™".
- skybrian 8y ago
  Yes, this sometimes happens, but you shouldn't let that overshadow the Chrome team's commitment to web standards and open source.
  - mort96 8y ago
    You're right, you shouldn't let that overshadow the Chrome team's commitment to open source. You should maybe let the fact that Chrome is closed source overshadow the Chrome team's commitment to open source.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      Yes, it's true that Chrome has closed-source components. Meanwhile, Chromium is still available. Node and Electron wouldn't exist without having Google's work to start off with, as a base for the work of many others. (Though of course Google was building on the early work at Netscape, and some features of web standards were invented at Microsoft, despite IE not being open source at all). This way of building on the work of other people (hopefully giving due credit) is how open source is supposed to work. It doesn't mean Google can or should do everything for the community; if we don't like the direction Google is going we need to do some of the work ourselves.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        I actually given that I have to deal with apps that should have been web based, but are not, 'cause dev convenience. And having to untangle npm based builds to what used to be a simple set of scripts and HTML includes, because many JavaScript libraries assume a node based deployment and nothing else. With those outcomes I do not consider it a good result.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    You mean DartVM, NaCL, Gears, Houdini? It is not for lack of trying. They just happen to have more dev love than MS, with the whole do no evil mantra.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      Dart and NaCL (at least) are open source. People at Google do often try to change (they would say improve) web standards. This isn't inconsistent with supporting standardization, since the idea is that other browsers should implement the new features too. Support for web standards doesn't mean always being a follower.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        That doesn't change the fact that there are web sites build with such technologies, which weren't adopted by other vendors.
      - mintplant 8y ago
        I don't know what the situation is now, but back when they were trying to push it toward standardization, NaCl was tightly integrated into the Chromium codebase with spotty public documentation. It would have been quite burdensome for other browsers to integrate and maintain, let alone for non-Google engineers to significantly contribute to and influence the direction of development.

pjmlp 8y ago

Including "Works best on Chrome™".

skybrian 8y ago
Yes, this sometimes happens, but you shouldn't let that overshadow the Chrome team's commitment to web standards and open source.
- mort96 8y ago
  You're right, you shouldn't let that overshadow the Chrome team's commitment to open source. You should maybe let the fact that Chrome is closed source overshadow the Chrome team's commitment to open source.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Yes, it's true that Chrome has closed-source components. Meanwhile, Chromium is still available. Node and Electron wouldn't exist without having Google's work to start off with, as a base for the work of many others. (Though of course Google was building on the early work at Netscape, and some features of web standards were invented at Microsoft, despite IE not being open source at all). This way of building on the work of other people (hopefully giving due credit) is how open source is supposed to work. It doesn't mean Google can or should do everything for the community; if we don't like the direction Google is going we need to do some of the work ourselves.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      I actually given that I have to deal with apps that should have been web based, but are not, 'cause dev convenience. And having to untangle npm based builds to what used to be a simple set of scripts and HTML includes, because many JavaScript libraries assume a node based deployment and nothing else. With those outcomes I do not consider it a good result.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  You mean DartVM, NaCL, Gears, Houdini? It is not for lack of trying. They just happen to have more dev love than MS, with the whole do no evil mantra.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Dart and NaCL (at least) are open source. People at Google do often try to change (they would say improve) web standards. This isn't inconsistent with supporting standardization, since the idea is that other browsers should implement the new features too. Support for web standards doesn't mean always being a follower.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      That doesn't change the fact that there are web sites build with such technologies, which weren't adopted by other vendors.
    - mintplant 8y ago
      I don't know what the situation is now, but back when they were trying to push it toward standardization, NaCl was tightly integrated into the Chromium codebase with spotty public documentation. It would have been quite burdensome for other browsers to integrate and maintain, let alone for non-Google engineers to significantly contribute to and influence the direction of development.