3 ms·
Ultimately, pursuing a full-featured graphical web browser might not be the right approach for a volunteer-/hobby-driven project to develop a web browser. But
by pwdisswordfish8 6y ago
Ultimately, pursuing a full-featured graphical web browser might not be the right approach for a volunteer-/hobby-driven project to develop a web browser. But it would absolutely make sense that a newly implemented terminal-based browser in Go (or any other memory-safe language) could/should replace Lynx and w3m.
It's actually pretty surprising that there hasn't been a niche surge in websites specifically meant to work well in textmode browsers, considering how many programmers claim to spend 90% of their time inside either a terminal window or in a web browser. Even now on HN I'm typing this in Firefox. And Sourcehut, too is widely acclaimed for being "simple" and/or "minimal", but it's not exactly great (or even clear) to look at in the two browsers I just checked.
- jpgleeson 6y agoThis has been happening, just not really on the web. It’s more located on protocols like gopher[0] or Gemini[1]. Gemini in particular has quite a large amount of projects hosted on sourcehut, and sourcehut even serves pages on its new pages service to Gemini. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol) [1] https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
- pwdisswordfish8 5y agoThis is a comment advocating for Gemini (which is from the start a misguided endeavour) with no concrete examples of how the simple use case mentioned above (the straightforwardness (or not) of trying to use Sourcehut from the terminal) is actually solved in Gemini space.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]