2 ms·
The web is 10x more complicated now. Firefox's challenge was being bug-compatible with IE, but the challenge now is replicating the entire browser runtime.
by selfhoster11 5y ago
The web is 10x more complicated now. Firefox's challenge was being bug-compatible with IE, but the challenge now is replicating the entire browser runtime.
- SllX 5y agoDoes the web being 10x more complicated mean that 1. Google Chrome, which full disclosure: isn’t my browser of choice, deserves the same end as Internet Explorer? And 2. That the government is the means by which it should be brought to heel? I mentioned this in another comment, but Google Chrome originally piggybacked on WebKit, homegrown JS runtime aside, before forking out of there. I think there’s a decent chance that the same could happen to Google via another Chromium-based browser. Just because it’s not immediately apparent how Chrome will lose its dominance today doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen. Nor does that mean it should. People actually like Chrome. I used to like Chrome, and it’s easy to see how people with a different set of priorities than mine still do. The old song was about IE6, and today’s song is about Google Chrome. The lyrics might be different but it’s still the same old song.
- selfhoster11 5y agoI don't want to see Chrome (and Chromium) die, I merely want to see other browser engines flourish. Heck, even Trident, if we could turn back time and have Explorer become a good web citizen. My problem with Chrome dominance is that it's both a dominance of a single company (since Chrome is by far the dominant "fork" of Chromium, and owned by an advertising corporation), and a dominance of a single browser engine. The latter is IMO a really big threat, as it leads to browser engine monoculture. Monoculture leads to a single point of failure, and in this case, a loss of knowledge about how to build a browser engine that's "the websites that are actually out there"-compliant. Much more relies on the web now, so it's paramount that we have a useful alternative browser engine implementation.
- SllX 5y agoSure, but what’s the original sin at work here? Google investing their time and resources into their browser projects, or the fact that web became this complex mess because web developers beat the drum for 15 going on 20 years that the web should be an app runtime? Duplicating an app runtime feature for feature and bug for bug is difficult in a capital intensive sort of way. Even companies that can afford the expenditure, primarily Microsoft, decided to get out of that game because that level of expenditure comes with its own opportunity costs even at their level. And there are alternatives: WebKit and Mozilla, one of those is the exclusive web renderer for iPhones and iPads which is not an insignificant amount of hardware in the world. Google puts the work in. It’s really just that, and it’s their private prerogative to put that work in if they so choose, where others choose not to. The diversity of rendering engines isn’t great compared to say 15 years ago, but it’s not so bad that it’s a total monoculture in the way IE6 was. Actually thinking about it, more people are using more and different browser rendering engines than back then because Chromium-based browsers don’t have the total dominance that IE6 did, and there’s a lot more people on the web than there used to be. We had diversity, but we’re talking iCab, pre-WebKit OmniWeb, Opera on Presto, and yeah, Trident’s not really around anymore, but it was there, and so was Gecko and WebKit. At least you don’t need a browser that supports ActiveX controls for regular websites anymore.