3 ms·

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 func

by 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.

3 ms·

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 func

by Zev 18y ago

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.