4 ms·

If building from scratch maybe, but when was the last time a browser was built from scratch? Even Chromium was forked from WebKit.

adrianN 8y ago
That's my point. The web is so complex that browser engines are becoming a monoculture. Even if you forked Chromium now, you'd need hundreds of engineers just to keep up with all the new things that are constantly added.
- ummonk 8y ago
  Yeah, I was rather sad to see EdgeHTML go. Although I never used Edge, rendering engine diversity is good for the ecosystem.
- kordlessagain 8y ago
  > new things that are constantly added By golly, that's the problem right there.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
    One thing I’ve discovered from learning and using Common Lisp seriously is that it’s really important for a system to be specified in a way that allows for extensions to the system to be implemented in terms of primitives the language provides (e.g. you want a new language construct, write a macro to transform your desired syntax into Common Lisp). In languages and systems that don’t have this feature, an implementation that introduces useful extension begins to develop lock-in and makes it harder to compete. (E.g. no one writes the Haskell specified in the Haskell report anymore, because all the libraries you might want to use use one or more ghc-specific extensions.( )
    - Felz 8y ago
      There are significant tradeoffs between shared constructs and self contained systems. Self contained systems resist ossification; they can be unilaterally replaced. A shared construct has to evolve in step with all of its users. But the self contained system will have thousands of incompatible implementations, and the shared system will be easier to interact with and build on top of. What this means is that a browser should standardize on things meant to be interfaces, and leave out all of the rest. Unfortunately, they didn't and now browser engines are huge and impossible to evolve except by adding more stuff. Similarly, the value of programming languages is almost entirely in the interfaces they provide which allow you to develop code. Lisp provides almost none of that, and that is why it failed to become mainstream.
    - tome 8y ago
      > no one writes the Haskell specified in the Haskell report anymore, because all the libraries you might want to use use one or more ghc-specific extensions This is a bit of a misconception. One can still write Haskell98 whilst using a library that use a GHC-specific extension. The library doesn't (have to) force its consumers to use extensions too!
      - fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
        I phrased that a bit wrong: my experience (from talking to the Haskellers in my company) is that Haskellers generally prefer to turn on a bunch of extensions when they write code. So, while you might be able to write pure Haskell98, it tends not to be idiomatic to do so.
- izacus 8y ago
  And yet the fact that the major engine implementation is opensource still allows each vendor to innovate by adding new useful features to the users. We're really far from IE6 era of complete stagnation.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    Not really, as far as the core browser engine tech goes. In practice it's too difficult to maintain a Chromium fork that diverges in any significant way other than the front end. Opera and Edge (per announcement) use vanilla upstream Blink.
misterman0 8y ago
But since when is it a good thing that the last time someone managed to build a web render engine from scratch was thousands of years ago?
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  Hopefully Mozilla will have some luck modernizing by replacing pieces one at a time with Rust components. ;)
  - xg15 8y ago
    What do Firefox implementation details have to do with this?
    - SquareWheel 8y ago
      They are modernizing the browser by replacing pieces over time. That's relevant to the topic of browsers being built on legacy tech.
      - xg15 8y ago
        I don't see how this supports to the argument that you can easily build a new, competing browser by forking. If you fork and then need the same kind of resources to replyce the forked codebase with your own, I don't see what you'd win.
xg15 8y ago
Even if you fork, you'll still need constant investment to just keep it up-to date with the ever-evolving "living standard".

adrianN 8y ago

That's my point. The web is so complex that browser engines are becoming a monoculture. Even if you forked Chromium now, you'd need hundreds of engineers just to keep up with all the new things that are constantly added.

ummonk 8y ago
Yeah, I was rather sad to see EdgeHTML go. Although I never used Edge, rendering engine diversity is good for the ecosystem.
kordlessagain 8y ago
> new things that are constantly added By golly, that's the problem right there.
- fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
  One thing I’ve discovered from learning and using Common Lisp seriously is that it’s really important for a system to be specified in a way that allows for extensions to the system to be implemented in terms of primitives the language provides (e.g. you want a new language construct, write a macro to transform your desired syntax into Common Lisp). In languages and systems that don’t have this feature, an implementation that introduces useful extension begins to develop lock-in and makes it harder to compete. (E.g. no one writes the Haskell specified in the Haskell report anymore, because all the libraries you might want to use use one or more ghc-specific extensions.( )
  - Felz 8y ago
    There are significant tradeoffs between shared constructs and self contained systems. Self contained systems resist ossification; they can be unilaterally replaced. A shared construct has to evolve in step with all of its users. But the self contained system will have thousands of incompatible implementations, and the shared system will be easier to interact with and build on top of. What this means is that a browser should standardize on things meant to be interfaces, and leave out all of the rest. Unfortunately, they didn't and now browser engines are huge and impossible to evolve except by adding more stuff. Similarly, the value of programming languages is almost entirely in the interfaces they provide which allow you to develop code. Lisp provides almost none of that, and that is why it failed to become mainstream.
  - tome 8y ago
    > no one writes the Haskell specified in the Haskell report anymore, because all the libraries you might want to use use one or more ghc-specific extensions This is a bit of a misconception. One can still write Haskell98 whilst using a library that use a GHC-specific extension. The library doesn't (have to) force its consumers to use extensions too!
    - fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
      I phrased that a bit wrong: my experience (from talking to the Haskellers in my company) is that Haskellers generally prefer to turn on a bunch of extensions when they write code. So, while you might be able to write pure Haskell98, it tends not to be idiomatic to do so.
izacus 8y ago
And yet the fact that the major engine implementation is opensource still allows each vendor to innovate by adding new useful features to the users. We're really far from IE6 era of complete stagnation.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  Not really, as far as the core browser engine tech goes. In practice it's too difficult to maintain a Chromium fork that diverges in any significant way other than the front end. Opera and Edge (per announcement) use vanilla upstream Blink.

misterman0 8y ago

But since when is it a good thing that the last time someone managed to build a web render engine from scratch was thousands of years ago?

SquareWheel 8y ago
Hopefully Mozilla will have some luck modernizing by replacing pieces one at a time with Rust components. ;)
- xg15 8y ago
  What do Firefox implementation details have to do with this?
  - SquareWheel 8y ago
    They are modernizing the browser by replacing pieces over time. That's relevant to the topic of browsers being built on legacy tech.
    - xg15 8y ago
      I don't see how this supports to the argument that you can easily build a new, competing browser by forking. If you fork and then need the same kind of resources to replyce the forked codebase with your own, I don't see what you'd win.

xg15 8y ago

Even if you fork, you'll still need constant investment to just keep it up-to date with the ever-evolving "living standard".