3 ms·

Firefox will be able to share approximately 0% of the code of Google Chrome. WebKit is designed totally differently than Gecko, and the overall architecture of

Firefox will be able to share approximately 0% of the code of Google Chrome. WebKit is designed totally differently than Gecko, and the overall architecture of Google Chrome (multi-process) is totally different than that of Firefox (single process, single threaded).

stcredzero 18y ago
You can usually use code from a multi-threaded code base in a single threaded program. I'm sure that all of Chrome won't be reusable. But to say that it will be 0% is a bit of a stretch. Are you implying that none of the code in Firefox or Chrome is going to be orthogonal to rendering web pages? Is this how you architect your programs?
- silencio 18y ago
  I'm doubtful that google will actually make an effort for the code to be reusable in firefox specifically, while I'm sure that there's a possibility google can and will contribute lots back to webkit. Sure, some of the codebase will likely be reusable in ff, but it's not something you should really count on. And even if it isn't reusable, you can probably take a hint on some of the more interesting features and reimplement them if it turns out the parts you care about aren't reusable.
- Zev 18y ago
  As was pointed out earlier, for rendering, Chrome uses WebKit (of Safari, Android, and S60 fame). Firefox uses Gecko. It's not as simple as picking random functions out of one codebase and dropping them into the other one. It just doesn't work that way. However if you meant the spread of ideas can flow from Chrome to Firefox (or even Safari; WebKit is open source as well), then yes, you're right about that. But its highly likely that the underlying code for said feature will be the exact same in all three browsers.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    Memory management is largely orthogonal to a whole lot of stuff. That's a big area where Firefox can improve.
    - Zev 18y ago
      All I said was that the code can't be copied and pasted between browsers. (probably.) Doing so A. wont work (most likely), and B. lead to poor memory management on the application if it somehow does manage to work. Instead, the ideas will be taken and copied (and hopefully made better). But idea's aren't code. So unless you're talking about human memory (which seems highly unlikely given you said "…where Firefox can improve") I'm not quite sure what benefits in terms of memory usage Firefox (or Safari or even Opera) gets from this.
      - stcredzero 18y ago
        Entire subsystems like Google Gears can probably be put in place, with a lot of code used without modification. Also, if someone implemented my original proposal in this thread, this would be entirely orthogonal to any code currently in Firefox.
        DougBTX 18y ago
        Gears and WebKit were designed to be reusable, other features such as the process model would be much harder to integrate into Firefox. I'd be interested to see Firefox embedded in a "wrapper" VM, but I think you'll find it harder to implement than you expect. Please post to HN if you give it a shot.

stcredzero 18y ago

You can usually use code from a multi-threaded code base in a single threaded program. I'm sure that all of Chrome won't be reusable. But to say that it will be 0% is a bit of a stretch. Are you implying that none of the code in Firefox or Chrome is going to be orthogonal to rendering web pages? Is this how you architect your programs?

silencio 18y ago
I'm doubtful that google will actually make an effort for the code to be reusable in firefox specifically, while I'm sure that there's a possibility google can and will contribute lots back to webkit. Sure, some of the codebase will likely be reusable in ff, but it's not something you should really count on. And even if it isn't reusable, you can probably take a hint on some of the more interesting features and reimplement them if it turns out the parts you care about aren't reusable.
Zev 18y ago
As was pointed out earlier, for rendering, Chrome uses WebKit (of Safari, Android, and S60 fame). Firefox uses Gecko. It's not as simple as picking random functions out of one codebase and dropping them into the other one. It just doesn't work that way. However if you meant the spread of ideas can flow from Chrome to Firefox (or even Safari; WebKit is open source as well), then yes, you're right about that. But its highly likely that the underlying code for said feature will be the exact same in all three browsers.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Memory management is largely orthogonal to a whole lot of stuff. That's a big area where Firefox can improve.
  - Zev 18y ago
    All I said was that the code can't be copied and pasted between browsers. (probably.) Doing so A. wont work (most likely), and B. lead to poor memory management on the application if it somehow does manage to work. Instead, the ideas will be taken and copied (and hopefully made better). But idea's aren't code. So unless you're talking about human memory (which seems highly unlikely given you said "…where Firefox can improve") I'm not quite sure what benefits in terms of memory usage Firefox (or Safari or even Opera) gets from this.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      Entire subsystems like Google Gears can probably be put in place, with a lot of code used without modification. Also, if someone implemented my original proposal in this thread, this would be entirely orthogonal to any code currently in Firefox.
      - DougBTX 18y ago
        Gears and WebKit were designed to be reusable, other features such as the process model would be much harder to integrate into Firefox. I'd be interested to see Firefox embedded in a "wrapper" VM, but I think you'll find it harder to implement than you expect. Please post to HN if you give it a shot.