3 ms·
There's hardly any point forking if most or all websites are tested for Chrome and its idiosyncrasies, and don't work well on other browsers. We have seen that
by wtmt 7y ago
There's hardly any point forking if most or all websites are tested for Chrome and its idiosyncrasies, and don't work well on other browsers. We have seen that playing out for sometime.
- true_religion 7y agoIt means we can’t end up in an IE6 scenario, where the caretaking company loses interest in developing the browser, and we are all stuck using old technology forever. Someone can simply fork it, with all its idiosyncrasies, then build new versions with new features. Do you want a browser that natively supports a language other than JavaScript? Chromium is a great starting point.
- palashkaria 7y agoWell, I think the argument was more about Webkit, then Chrome itself. Even flow here does not use a JS engine written from scratch - they use SpiderMonkey. PS: As a webkit-based Chrome alternative, Brave browser does really well.
- ksec 7y agoInteresting they choose Spidermonkey over Webkit's JS Engine . I could sort of understand not choosing v8 which is now quite bloated as it is also optimising for lots of other things, but Spidermonkey?
- Terretta 7y agoRemember when you could test on WebKit, to hit both Chrome and iOS, with OSX Safari as a bonus?