3 ms·

The more complex the languages for building web pages become, the more complex browsers become, the harder it is for someone to build or continue to build a Chr

The more complex the languages for building web pages become, the more complex browsers become, the harder it is for someone to build or continue to build a Chrome alternative, the harder it becomes to challenge Google. The more complex these languages are, the more SEO content gets generated ad nauseum. Yet it is impossible to learn CSS from searching Google.

PaulHoule 3y ago
The CSS specification refers to roughly 50 documents describing CSS https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2022/ https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2022/ Note it is a common structure for standard documents to be written like "Dates are formatted like the ISO 8601 standard (which nobody has ever read because nobody thinks it is worth 166 swiss francs) except that instead of a four digit year it is a six digit year" which is absolutely mind bending for people to understand. Maybe with LLMs we can merge a standards documents and 50 amendments into a single coherent document, a prospect I was thinking of attacking with knowledge graphs a few years ago.
nicoburns 3y ago
> The more complex the languages for building web pages become, the more complex browsers become, the harder it is for someone to build or continue to build a Chrome alternative I think the way forwards here is to make everything modular. Then people can fork a browser and easily replace a single component. The Servo project has made a very good start on this.
waboremo 3y ago
It's never been easier to build web pages. Never been easier to build a browser. Where problems arise is when people expect to challenge behemoths right from launch. Like demanding your burgers be adopted by all mcdonalds consumers when you haven't done anything to actually compete with them.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  > It's never been easier to build web pages. Never been easier to build a browser. And yet, Microsoft ditched its own engine and went with Chrome's. So did Brave and others. > Where problems arise is when people expect to challenge behemoths right from launch. Like demanding your burgers be adopted by all mcdonalds consumers when you haven't done anything to actually compete with them. So they should start small and slowly build up the artificial complexity that accumulated over decades in incubent browsers until it reaches feature parity? By then, the other browsers will have another 10+ years of more complexity than you. I don't quite get what's your point here. Could you give examples?
  - waboremo 3y ago
    Yes they did. Because they do not care about a good browser engine product. They care about selling services on top of that. So whether it's Chromium or something else entirely, they don't care. They went with what had the most external developers working on it because again, they do not care about the engine. >So they should start small and slowly build up the artificial complexity that accumulated over decades in incubent browsers until it reaches feature parity? No, they should find a new angle. What are they building a browser engine for? To go back to the burger example, you cannot compete with McDonalds by trying to do everything they do. Everyone understands this about general products, you can't compete with Apple by making an iPhone clone. You can't compete with Marvel by making funny light hearted hero movies. Yet, when it comes to browser engines people short circuit. Do you know about Steam? The video game launcher/store. This store is so successful that it's spawned many competitors who struggle to compete. Why is this? Because they do not want to change the status quo too much, they just want their company to be where Steam is. So they spend so much time and money trying to add features Steam has had for years now, all while people refuse to budge because "why use a steam clone that's worse?" Sound familiar? This is the current problem with browser engines. Everyone just wants to be Chrome, to have Chrome's userbase, but they don't want to actually think about a product. They don't want to find a niche, or make people rethink what a browser should be/do. Therefore, it's not a problem that people keep failing to be Chrome. I say good riddance. We don't need a Chrome alternative; we need something else entirely.
    - 3y ago
samwillis 3y ago
Andreas Kling would beg to differ, it's absolutely possible for a small team to build a completely new browser from scratch. https://awesomekling.github.io/Ladybird-a-new-cross-platform-browser-project/ https://awesomekling.github.io/Ladybird-a-new-cross-platform...

PaulHoule 3y ago

The CSS specification refers to roughly 50 documents describing CSS https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2022/ https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2022/ Note it is a common structure for standard documents to be written like "Dates are formatted like the ISO 8601 standard (which nobody has ever read because nobody thinks it is worth 166 swiss francs) except that instead of a four digit year it is a six digit year" which is absolutely mind bending for people to understand. Maybe with LLMs we can merge a standards documents and 50 amendments into a single coherent document, a prospect I was thinking of attacking with knowledge graphs a few years ago.

nicoburns 3y ago

> The more complex the languages for building web pages become, the more complex browsers become, the harder it is for someone to build or continue to build a Chrome alternative I think the way forwards here is to make everything modular. Then people can fork a browser and easily replace a single component. The Servo project has made a very good start on this.

waboremo 3y ago

It's never been easier to build web pages. Never been easier to build a browser. Where problems arise is when people expect to challenge behemoths right from launch. Like demanding your burgers be adopted by all mcdonalds consumers when you haven't done anything to actually compete with them.

gtirloni 3y ago
> It's never been easier to build web pages. Never been easier to build a browser. And yet, Microsoft ditched its own engine and went with Chrome's. So did Brave and others. > Where problems arise is when people expect to challenge behemoths right from launch. Like demanding your burgers be adopted by all mcdonalds consumers when you haven't done anything to actually compete with them. So they should start small and slowly build up the artificial complexity that accumulated over decades in incubent browsers until it reaches feature parity? By then, the other browsers will have another 10+ years of more complexity than you. I don't quite get what's your point here. Could you give examples?
- waboremo 3y ago
  Yes they did. Because they do not care about a good browser engine product. They care about selling services on top of that. So whether it's Chromium or something else entirely, they don't care. They went with what had the most external developers working on it because again, they do not care about the engine. >So they should start small and slowly build up the artificial complexity that accumulated over decades in incubent browsers until it reaches feature parity? No, they should find a new angle. What are they building a browser engine for? To go back to the burger example, you cannot compete with McDonalds by trying to do everything they do. Everyone understands this about general products, you can't compete with Apple by making an iPhone clone. You can't compete with Marvel by making funny light hearted hero movies. Yet, when it comes to browser engines people short circuit. Do you know about Steam? The video game launcher/store. This store is so successful that it's spawned many competitors who struggle to compete. Why is this? Because they do not want to change the status quo too much, they just want their company to be where Steam is. So they spend so much time and money trying to add features Steam has had for years now, all while people refuse to budge because "why use a steam clone that's worse?" Sound familiar? This is the current problem with browser engines. Everyone just wants to be Chrome, to have Chrome's userbase, but they don't want to actually think about a product. They don't want to find a niche, or make people rethink what a browser should be/do. Therefore, it's not a problem that people keep failing to be Chrome. I say good riddance. We don't need a Chrome alternative; we need something else entirely.
  - 3y ago

samwillis 3y ago

Andreas Kling would beg to differ, it's absolutely possible for a small team to build a completely new browser from scratch. https://awesomekling.github.io/Ladybird-a-new-cross-platform-browser-project/ https://awesomekling.github.io/Ladybird-a-new-cross-platform...