4 ms·
I don't have a real answer for you, more just shades of understanding. I believe it's the case that Chromium is just more extensible and designed for reuse. Wh
by taftster 6y ago
I don't have a real answer for you, more just shades of understanding. I believe it's the case that Chromium is just more extensible and designed for reuse. Whereas Firefox is more monolithic and less able to be extended.
I don't think it has anything to do with the javascript engine per se, but more the general API surface that Chromium gives you. There might be some additional benefit that Chrome is the most used browser (currently) and so there might be some developer sentiment or familiarity with it; Chrome's popularity might push adoption for Chromium.
- jay_kyburz 6y agoI don't understand why Mozilla itself doesn't support an Electron clone.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y agoBecause the people calling the shots don't understand the "market". They've been coasting on their (predecessors') early success for years. Their numbers with respect to audience size is dependent on the same factors that OpenOffice depends on: people with a faint awareness of what the project is / once was but no real exposure to the ins and outs of what has changed about the projects in the last several years.
- Guidii 6y agoShort answer is that the amount of time and energy to create and maintain it wouldn't be justified by the expected gain. I'm not even sure what moz would gain here.
- jay_kyburz 6y agoI can see a lot of value in having their technology more widely distributed. The same could be said of the browser tech itself. They could just switch to a webkit engine, have the same market share, and still "gain" whatever it is they are gaining now.