3 ms·
As I acknowledged. But what they did originally is only a fraction of what's required for a browser these days. Saying "KDE did it" today is like saying "look,
by franga2000 6y ago
As I acknowledged. But what they did originally is only a fraction of what's required for a browser these days. Saying "KDE did it" today is like saying "look, the Wright brothers built a plane! You can, too!".
Back then, the web was simpler and so we had many different engines. Today, we really only have two. All other attempts have failed - even Microsoft couldn't compete. The only reason Mozilla is still going is because of their head start and Google money. If Apple hadn't picked up KHTML and turned it into WebKit and Google developed their own thing, KHTML would be even more dead than Gecko is today.
- Krisando 6y ago> the web was simpler and so we had many different engines I would argue it was more complex, trying to get something moderately advanced to render the same between many browsers became a massive chore compared to today.
- franga2000 6y agoIt was harder to code for, sure, but looking at the standards, there were far fewer things a browser vendor needed to implement, so the complexity of the technology involved was lower. It's the same situation as RISC vs CISC - for a programer, CISC is "easier" to write for (== it does more work for you), but for a chip designer, RISC is much simpler to design and implement.
- swiley 6y agoApple contributing to webkit is largely what drove the web to its current place as a complex application runtime. That's how we got the canvas element for example.