5 ms·

Even if Firefox and Chrome used Gecko and Blink with JSC, that's still a marked improvement from the state of things today. Most of what I dislike about Safari

Even if Firefox and Chrome used Gecko and Blink with JSC, that's still a marked improvement from the state of things today. Most of what I dislike about Safari are its weird rendering issues, which would be solved.

isodev 4y ago
Just to be clear though, you will just be getting Blink/Gecko’s rendering issues instead.
- rattray 4y ago
  You'd be getting the ability to choose which rendering issues you went to experience for any given website, which is actually quite useful.
- rektide 4y ago
  Ideally or potentially Firefoxes or potentially say Servos or any other browser of choice. As opposed to the very-low not-so-common denominator of this anti-invested in naughty stepchild of the Apple 30% rent-stealing profit-garden that is modern Apple.
- CitizenKane 4y ago
  Which is true, but they're much less prominent overall. Mobile Safari is quirky to say the least and is truly the IE of the present day.
  - isodev 4y ago
    Are they really? Safari is currently leading Interop 2022 https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022 https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022
    - lxgr 4y ago
      Given how vast the modern web specifications are, you could really be 99% compliant but provide a pretty mediocre experience to your users, or vice versa. For example, I use Firefox as my main browser, and the lack of e.g. proper WebAuthN support on macOS has a much, much higher impact to me (and is making me consider switching), whereas I couldn't care less about e.g. WebUSB (which I do occasionally use, but I'm fine switching to Chrome for that use case). To get an accurate picture, you'd have to somehow weigh all of these various standards and features in a way that not only accurately presents actual users, but also their relative importance (i.e. do websites trying to use something fail gracefully, or do I effectively have to use another browser to get achieve what I'm there for).
saagarjha 4y ago
That's not how it works; to use JavaScriptCore's JIT you need to load up a WebKit web view (which runs in a separate process).
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  That's objectively untrue. Even the most basic Google search shows that this is untrue.
  - lxgr 4y ago
    Can you show a source, then? I‘m also pretty sure JIT (i.e. write+execute) permissions are enforced at the process level. Some apps work around this by running JavaScript in an invisible WebKit view, but that approach has IPC overhead, so is probably only worth it for processes that interact with the UI and rest of the app infrequently (which is the opposite of what you‘d want from a JS engine interacting with the DOM). a-Shell uses it for performant WASM execution of CLI executables, for example.
  - circuit10 4y ago
    Just Googled it and it looks like you’re the one who’s wrong… did you actually Google it yourself before posting this?

isodev 4y ago

Just to be clear though, you will just be getting Blink/Gecko’s rendering issues instead.

rattray 4y ago
You'd be getting the ability to choose which rendering issues you went to experience for any given website, which is actually quite useful.
rektide 4y ago
Ideally or potentially Firefoxes or potentially say Servos or any other browser of choice. As opposed to the very-low not-so-common denominator of this anti-invested in naughty stepchild of the Apple 30% rent-stealing profit-garden that is modern Apple.
CitizenKane 4y ago
Which is true, but they're much less prominent overall. Mobile Safari is quirky to say the least and is truly the IE of the present day.
- isodev 4y ago
  Are they really? Safari is currently leading Interop 2022 https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022 https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022
  - lxgr 4y ago
    Given how vast the modern web specifications are, you could really be 99% compliant but provide a pretty mediocre experience to your users, or vice versa. For example, I use Firefox as my main browser, and the lack of e.g. proper WebAuthN support on macOS has a much, much higher impact to me (and is making me consider switching), whereas I couldn't care less about e.g. WebUSB (which I do occasionally use, but I'm fine switching to Chrome for that use case). To get an accurate picture, you'd have to somehow weigh all of these various standards and features in a way that not only accurately presents actual users, but also their relative importance (i.e. do websites trying to use something fail gracefully, or do I effectively have to use another browser to get achieve what I'm there for).

saagarjha 4y ago

That's not how it works; to use JavaScriptCore's JIT you need to load up a WebKit web view (which runs in a separate process).

bastawhiz 4y ago
That's objectively untrue. Even the most basic Google search shows that this is untrue.
- lxgr 4y ago
  Can you show a source, then? I‘m also pretty sure JIT (i.e. write+execute) permissions are enforced at the process level. Some apps work around this by running JavaScript in an invisible WebKit view, but that approach has IPC overhead, so is probably only worth it for processes that interact with the UI and rest of the app infrequently (which is the opposite of what you‘d want from a JS engine interacting with the DOM). a-Shell uses it for performant WASM execution of CLI executables, for example.
- circuit10 4y ago
  Just Googled it and it looks like you’re the one who’s wrong… did you actually Google it yourself before posting this?