3 ms·
As long as they don't get rid of the Qt dependency the project is a bit pointless. If you are using Qt anyways Qt Webview offers already a superior way to rende
by sprash 2y ago
As long as they don't get rid of the Qt dependency the project is a bit pointless. If you are using Qt anyways Qt Webview offers already a superior way to render HTML than Ladybird.
- flohofwoe 2y agoQt webview is just Chromium in a trenchcoat. The point is to create a new browser engine, not a new Chromium UI (and hopefully much less bloated than Chromium).
- krackers 2y agoOn mac there's a native appkit backend, no qt needed as far as i can see.
- nurbl 2y agoI think the point is the opposite; they have decided to build a new "web stack" from scratch, not just build a new "browser" (or invent a new GUI framework). Hopefully the web engine is not deeply tied to Qt, but you need something in order to draw an interactive window. The article mentions that they will also use existing libraries for things like font rendering. Seems like a pragmatic decision to me.
- amelius 2y agoNo, because with the current architecture they can more easily migrate away to different GUI libraries.
- 1GZ0 2y agoGUI libraries and a browser engines are vastly different things. Think of Ladybird as Blink, Webkit or Gecko.