5 ms·

> Ok, then it could be played a little harder, for example by introducing a (small) performance penality for visitors that use chrome. Good luck convincing you

by vageli 7y ago

> Ok, then it could be played a little harder, for example by introducing a (small) performance penality for visitors that use chrome. Good luck convincing your product owner of the necessity of that change. Most large enterprises won't do something like this.

eganist 7y ago
That's not the place to target such a change, if anyone's to do it. If there's the support of a major maintainer of a popular library, merging changes which incrementally incur larger performance penalties in Blink may be more effective. If there's no support from a major maintainer, then simply writing contributions which are largely tested in firefox for performance but are tested in Blink for mere functionality should succeed over time in inducing the same. In the end, the libraries are lock-in for larger SaaS providers far more than they might be aware, and if such changes start making it into e.g. React, there's not all that much that many product teams can do to work around it other than replying via support channels that Firefox seems to take less of a performance penalty. That's the black hat in me talking. Resuming white hat status now.
- vkou 7y ago
  > If there's the support of a major maintainer of a popular library, merging changes which incrementally incur larger performance penalties in Blink may be more effective. That library will get forked by industry. If its license does not permit forking, it's incredibly unlikely that it can get traction in the first place.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  No need to blackhat; rather than intentionally degrading it for one browser, just optimize for the other. I'm reasonably confident that there are areas where FFx is more performant; use them.
chris_wot 7y ago
You could just add more intrusive ads to your site. The site owner will be thrilled, and the users not thrilled at all. It would work very well for all concerned!

by vageli 7y ago

eganist 7y ago

That's not the place to target such a change, if anyone's to do it. If there's the support of a major maintainer of a popular library, merging changes which incrementally incur larger performance penalties in Blink may be more effective. If there's no support from a major maintainer, then simply writing contributions which are largely tested in firefox for performance but are tested in Blink for mere functionality should succeed over time in inducing the same. In the end, the libraries are lock-in for larger SaaS providers far more than they might be aware, and if such changes start making it into e.g. React, there's not all that much that many product teams can do to work around it other than replying via support channels that Firefox seems to take less of a performance penalty. That's the black hat in me talking. Resuming white hat status now.

vkou 7y ago
> If there's the support of a major maintainer of a popular library, merging changes which incrementally incur larger performance penalties in Blink may be more effective. That library will get forked by industry. If its license does not permit forking, it's incredibly unlikely that it can get traction in the first place.
yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
No need to blackhat; rather than intentionally degrading it for one browser, just optimize for the other. I'm reasonably confident that there are areas where FFx is more performant; use them.

chris_wot 7y ago

You could just add more intrusive ads to your site. The site owner will be thrilled, and the users not thrilled at all. It would work very well for all concerned!