3 ms·

I agree in principle, but they tend to diversify into alternative projects that leave bad taste in one's mouth. Rust being the notable exception of course. Rus

I agree in principle, but they tend to diversify into alternative projects that leave bad taste in one's mouth. Rust being the notable exception of course. Rust is probably what Mozilla will be remembered for when Google pulls the financial support for Firefox.

sofixa 4y ago
It's funny you chose Rust, because at face value, ignoring how useful the language is, creating a programming language from scratch for a browser seems a bit overkill and a waste of money/focus. So you should either trust Mozilla the organisation to spend funds wisely, or not. Forcing them to spend only on Firefox can still result in "waste" from a purist perspective (like a programming language) while at the same time massively constraining them. And i quite like some of Mozilla's alternative projects. Pocket is cool and genuinely useful. Thunderbird could use some love but is pretty decent.
- TuringTest 4y ago
  > It's funny you chose Rust, because at face value, ignoring how useful the language is, creating a programming language from scratch for a browser seems a bit overkill and a waste of money/focus. Rust was the right technical approach for this browser, given the existing technology and the problems they had to solve to update the rendering engine.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    It ended up being the right choice, but it's classic yak shaving.
- animuchan 4y ago
  Pocket may be cool, but the way they forced it down everyone's collective throat was... bad. They later bought the company, so now it's a kind-of-Mozilla product inside another Mozilla product, which doesn't sound nearly as egregious as it was at launch: a forced third-party browser extension that couldn't be meaningfully disabled.