5 ms·

> The browser is so comprehensive in functionality and APIs Not really. If you limit your scope by saying that you're building a hypertext document viewer, it

> The browser is so comprehensive in functionality and APIs Not really. If you limit your scope by saying that you're building a hypertext document viewer, it suddenly becomes approachable. A lot of the functionality is all that PWA stuff no one asked for and no one is using for anything good anyway. WebSQL? IndexedDB? Service workers? WebGL? WebGPU? WebBluetooth? WebRTC? Just act like it all doesn't exist. 99% of actual websites — not web "apps" — would not lose any functionality.

gen220 3y ago
In a world where UNIX-inspired systems run most software, I like to imagine that it’s possible for a UNIX-like browser to become dominant. Recall that UNIX (and C) were built (and adopted) in response to perceived over-complexities in contemporary systems. Maybe in 20 years we’ll recall + interact with Chrome like how people in the 80s recall + interacted with Multics or OS/360. To complete the analogy, I guess you’d expect to see this browser come out of former Safari interns/engineers at Apple.
- lib-dev 3y ago
  People interested in building browsers should look into WebKit. You can use that for HTML/CSS/JS rendering and save a lot of time/effort.
  - grishka 3y ago
    But the thing is that if I were to build a browser, I'd start from the requirement that websites should be treated like malware that can't be trusted. Applying my ideas to a preexisting enormous codebase feels troublesome.
- aktenlage 3y ago
  > To complete the analogy, I guess you’d expect to see this browser come out of former Safari interns/engineers at Apple. Sounds like Andreas Kling: https://www.techgamingreport.com/new-ladybird-web-browser-what-developer-andreas-kling-is-planning-with-his-team/ https://www.techgamingreport.com/new-ladybird-web-browser-wh...
rhplus 3y ago
No true websites use service workers, just like no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
nfw2 3y ago
"PWA stuff no one asked for" You don't speak for everybody.
- grishka 3y ago
  I've yet to see someone take a PWA seriously.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    I've seen (many) people use and appreciate Google Maps, for one
  - zdunn 3y ago
    Aren't you the developer of Smithereen (a fediverse server)? Nearly every other fediverse software has a web interface that can act as a PWA. I launch lemmy.ml and kbin.social as standalone PWAs from my homescreen. My pleroma instance also has some PWA features (though not standalone display mode). I don't use Mastodon, but @nolan@toot.cafe did some amazing work years ago to make it a really fast and responsive PWA (which has since been undone ). It's ok if you don't like to use PWAs but that doesn't mean nobody does or that they're worthless.
    - grishka 3y ago
      > Aren't you the developer of Smithereen (a fediverse server)? I am. But I'm biased because I'm primarily an Android developer who turned into a web and backend developer for some projects (I still do Android as well). So naturally, web app (not web site) development feels cumbersome to me. It's like trying to build a proper app UI with a souped up version of Word macros and layout engine. I much prefer native apps. Smithereen will have a client API eventually, when all features I deem necessary for version 1.0 will have been implemented. The large remaining ones are photo albums and discussion boards in groups. The yet-unreleased direct messages need some finishing touches as well. > It's ok if you don't like to use PWAs but that doesn't mean nobody does or that they're worthless. Well, that's my point — Chrome and Firefox and Safari, being "mainstream" browsers, try their best to satisfy everyone. They support PWAs, they have extensive accessibility support (that's scarily complex as well!), they implement all those APIs and standards that are complex but mostly unused, etc. If I were to build my own web browser from scratch, it'd have a warning in the readme along the lines of "if you require accessibility and/or PWA functionality, this is not for you, use one of the more advanced browsers".
zdunn 3y ago
I asked for it, and a lot of other ppl did too. These are great features and removing them would cause more than 1% of websites to lose some functionality. But, importantly, they shouldn't lose their core functionality (if they're written well) because that's the "Progressive" part of PWA. If you don't use the feature or your browser doesn't support it, the website should still have basic functionality. One of the big ideas behind PWAs is "progressive enhancement", where you layer on features that may not be supported everywhere but add value when they are supported. And a progressively built browser that doesn't implement every spec goes hand-in-hand with that. I think having more under-featured browsers like that would push webdevs into caring more about progressive enhancement.
Lord-Jobo 3y ago
>99% of actual websites — not web "apps" — would not lose any functionality. What percentage of user driven web traffic is done through 'web "apps"' and what percentage is 'actual websites'
- grishka 3y ago
  IMO most of what people do on the web is either reading articles (these don't even need JS), watching videos (no advanced browser functionality needed either), or writing comments and messages (some rather simple JS if any).
emodendroket 3y ago
Yes, if you arbitrarily define “Web site” to exclude most Web resources it is easy to declare victory. Maybe you can even have fun browsing some archived versions of Geocities pages.
hutzlibu 3y ago
"A lot of the functionality is all that PWA stuff no one asked for and no one is using for anything good anyway" It is really hard to engage with your comment in a constructive way, if you start by insulting everthing on the web, that is not a simple document (with comments). So I get it, you don't like the web as a plattform for apps. And it surely is not perfect. But do you have a better plattform independent alternative to offer?
- grishka 3y ago
  I despise cross-platform GUIs as a concept, but if you must make one, there's plenty of options usable from most languages. Java has Swing, C++ has Qt, there's things like Flutter and WxWidgets and a dozen different GUI libraries for Rust. Heck, you can even build GUIs in Python with tkinter. Every single one of these options is much better suited for an app than the web stack. My main gripe with using the web stack for building apps is that, unlike proper GUI framework, your platform is not made out of the same kind of code that you're writing. For example, there's a number of predefined layout algorithms that you can choose from and then control some of their parameters, but you can't write your own layout algorithm. You can kinda draw your custom controls, but both <canvas> and SVG are not without their own shortcomings compared to real GUI frameworks. A web browser is a glorified scriptable word processor so it's not surprising that it acts like one. Yes, there are "paint worklets" and "layout worklets" as proposals. That kinda makes it better but still feels like an ugly workaround. The declarativeness of HTML and CSS, extremely awkward for building app-like UIs with, is also never going anywhere.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "but you can't write your own layout algorithm." Of course you can - in javascript. What is stopping you? (except that you don't like it) You can also ditch the DOM alltogether and only use the canvas/webgl and maybe your language of choice via emscripten and wasm, if you really cannot stand js/ts. The web as a plattform is very, very powerful. The app you make, you can ship by simply sending a link. And people can just try it out without installing something and all quite save in a sandbox. So none of your solutions are better suited than the web stack, if you intend to target the maximum audience with the minimum hazzle. You have to beat that, if you want to overcome the web. Also, can you give me one example of a nice looking app in swing? Websites are optimized for enabling good UI and UX. Because the moment a user is confused - he is gone very quickly. And people can also customize their experience. I use dark reader and ublock. HTML and everything around it is often a ugly chaotic mess, but a incredibly powerful one.
thiht 3y ago
> no one asked for and no one is using for anything good anyway Speak for yourself. This is a crappy attitude honestly, you might want to keep an open mind on things you don’t have an interest in

gen220 3y ago

In a world where UNIX-inspired systems run most software, I like to imagine that it’s possible for a UNIX-like browser to become dominant. Recall that UNIX (and C) were built (and adopted) in response to perceived over-complexities in contemporary systems. Maybe in 20 years we’ll recall + interact with Chrome like how people in the 80s recall + interacted with Multics or OS/360. To complete the analogy, I guess you’d expect to see this browser come out of former Safari interns/engineers at Apple.

lib-dev 3y ago
People interested in building browsers should look into WebKit. You can use that for HTML/CSS/JS rendering and save a lot of time/effort.
- grishka 3y ago
  But the thing is that if I were to build a browser, I'd start from the requirement that websites should be treated like malware that can't be trusted. Applying my ideas to a preexisting enormous codebase feels troublesome.
aktenlage 3y ago
> To complete the analogy, I guess you’d expect to see this browser come out of former Safari interns/engineers at Apple. Sounds like Andreas Kling: https://www.techgamingreport.com/new-ladybird-web-browser-what-developer-andreas-kling-is-planning-with-his-team/ https://www.techgamingreport.com/new-ladybird-web-browser-wh...

rhplus 3y ago

No true websites use service workers, just like no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.

nfw2 3y ago

"PWA stuff no one asked for" You don't speak for everybody.

grishka 3y ago
I've yet to see someone take a PWA seriously.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  I've seen (many) people use and appreciate Google Maps, for one
- zdunn 3y ago
  Aren't you the developer of Smithereen (a fediverse server)? Nearly every other fediverse software has a web interface that can act as a PWA. I launch lemmy.ml and kbin.social as standalone PWAs from my homescreen. My pleroma instance also has some PWA features (though not standalone display mode). I don't use Mastodon, but @nolan@toot.cafe did some amazing work years ago to make it a really fast and responsive PWA (which has since been undone ). It's ok if you don't like to use PWAs but that doesn't mean nobody does or that they're worthless.
  - grishka 3y ago
    > Aren't you the developer of Smithereen (a fediverse server)? I am. But I'm biased because I'm primarily an Android developer who turned into a web and backend developer for some projects (I still do Android as well). So naturally, web app (not web site) development feels cumbersome to me. It's like trying to build a proper app UI with a souped up version of Word macros and layout engine. I much prefer native apps. Smithereen will have a client API eventually, when all features I deem necessary for version 1.0 will have been implemented. The large remaining ones are photo albums and discussion boards in groups. The yet-unreleased direct messages need some finishing touches as well. > It's ok if you don't like to use PWAs but that doesn't mean nobody does or that they're worthless. Well, that's my point — Chrome and Firefox and Safari, being "mainstream" browsers, try their best to satisfy everyone. They support PWAs, they have extensive accessibility support (that's scarily complex as well!), they implement all those APIs and standards that are complex but mostly unused, etc. If I were to build my own web browser from scratch, it'd have a warning in the readme along the lines of "if you require accessibility and/or PWA functionality, this is not for you, use one of the more advanced browsers".

zdunn 3y ago

I asked for it, and a lot of other ppl did too. These are great features and removing them would cause more than 1% of websites to lose some functionality. But, importantly, they shouldn't lose their core functionality (if they're written well) because that's the "Progressive" part of PWA. If you don't use the feature or your browser doesn't support it, the website should still have basic functionality. One of the big ideas behind PWAs is "progressive enhancement", where you layer on features that may not be supported everywhere but add value when they are supported. And a progressively built browser that doesn't implement every spec goes hand-in-hand with that. I think having more under-featured browsers like that would push webdevs into caring more about progressive enhancement.

Lord-Jobo 3y ago

>99% of actual websites — not web "apps" — would not lose any functionality. What percentage of user driven web traffic is done through 'web "apps"' and what percentage is 'actual websites'

grishka 3y ago
IMO most of what people do on the web is either reading articles (these don't even need JS), watching videos (no advanced browser functionality needed either), or writing comments and messages (some rather simple JS if any).

emodendroket 3y ago

Yes, if you arbitrarily define “Web site” to exclude most Web resources it is easy to declare victory. Maybe you can even have fun browsing some archived versions of Geocities pages.

hutzlibu 3y ago

"A lot of the functionality is all that PWA stuff no one asked for and no one is using for anything good anyway" It is really hard to engage with your comment in a constructive way, if you start by insulting everthing on the web, that is not a simple document (with comments). So I get it, you don't like the web as a plattform for apps. And it surely is not perfect. But do you have a better plattform independent alternative to offer?

grishka 3y ago
I despise cross-platform GUIs as a concept, but if you must make one, there's plenty of options usable from most languages. Java has Swing, C++ has Qt, there's things like Flutter and WxWidgets and a dozen different GUI libraries for Rust. Heck, you can even build GUIs in Python with tkinter. Every single one of these options is much better suited for an app than the web stack. My main gripe with using the web stack for building apps is that, unlike proper GUI framework, your platform is not made out of the same kind of code that you're writing. For example, there's a number of predefined layout algorithms that you can choose from and then control some of their parameters, but you can't write your own layout algorithm. You can kinda draw your custom controls, but both <canvas> and SVG are not without their own shortcomings compared to real GUI frameworks. A web browser is a glorified scriptable word processor so it's not surprising that it acts like one. Yes, there are "paint worklets" and "layout worklets" as proposals. That kinda makes it better but still feels like an ugly workaround. The declarativeness of HTML and CSS, extremely awkward for building app-like UIs with, is also never going anywhere.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "but you can't write your own layout algorithm." Of course you can - in javascript. What is stopping you? (except that you don't like it) You can also ditch the DOM alltogether and only use the canvas/webgl and maybe your language of choice via emscripten and wasm, if you really cannot stand js/ts. The web as a plattform is very, very powerful. The app you make, you can ship by simply sending a link. And people can just try it out without installing something and all quite save in a sandbox. So none of your solutions are better suited than the web stack, if you intend to target the maximum audience with the minimum hazzle. You have to beat that, if you want to overcome the web. Also, can you give me one example of a nice looking app in swing? Websites are optimized for enabling good UI and UX. Because the moment a user is confused - he is gone very quickly. And people can also customize their experience. I use dark reader and ublock. HTML and everything around it is often a ugly chaotic mess, but a incredibly powerful one.

thiht 3y ago

> no one asked for and no one is using for anything good anyway Speak for yourself. This is a crappy attitude honestly, you might want to keep an open mind on things you don’t have an interest in