4 ms·

No one is stopping you from rolling your own browser and taking market share away from the current Big Three. Or from forking Chrome, since it's open source, a

No one is stopping you from rolling your own browser and taking market share away from the current Big Three. Or from forking Chrome, since it's open source, and then offering your patch back to the central repo. Not sure if Firefox is open source, but could use that instead, too, if it is.

icebraining 14y ago
Firefox is not only open source, as it's developed mostly by the community, in cooperation with a non-profit foundation (Mozilla), whose mission is to keep the Internet open and free for everyone to participate. Chrome is a closed source browser based on the open source Chromium, and it includes some features that the open version doesn't, like embedded PDF reader or MP3 support.
chris_wot 14y ago
Nobody would use it as it wouldn't have market share. But that's besides the point. The behaviour is actually well defined; the only issue is with parseInt() taking the first character it sees as a number, converting it from it's base to base 10 and then prints the number. The issue being, of course, is that it would have been more sensible to given an exception for non-numeric strings.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > Nobody would use it as it wouldn't have market share. That's why I added the part about forking and contributing back. If it becomes part of the standard offering, then you don't have to worry about market share as much. And especially if you get a portable implementation then the IE and Chrome teams might decide to adapt it in, since you've lowered the engineering cost. > But that's besides the point. The behaviour is actually well defined There's a good reason to not use Javascript, if there's an option to use another language in the browser, that has nothing to do with JS's quality itself: context switching. Node.js is popular due in no small part to the fact that you have to use JS anyways. The purpose of GWT, as far as I'm aware, is to make it so you have Java as an option in the client.

icebraining 14y ago

Firefox is not only open source, as it's developed mostly by the community, in cooperation with a non-profit foundation (Mozilla), whose mission is to keep the Internet open and free for everyone to participate. Chrome is a closed source browser based on the open source Chromium, and it includes some features that the open version doesn't, like embedded PDF reader or MP3 support.

chris_wot 14y ago

Nobody would use it as it wouldn't have market share. But that's besides the point. The behaviour is actually well defined; the only issue is with parseInt() taking the first character it sees as a number, converting it from it's base to base 10 and then prints the number. The issue being, of course, is that it would have been more sensible to given an exception for non-numeric strings.

saraid216 14y ago
> Nobody would use it as it wouldn't have market share. That's why I added the part about forking and contributing back. If it becomes part of the standard offering, then you don't have to worry about market share as much. And especially if you get a portable implementation then the IE and Chrome teams might decide to adapt it in, since you've lowered the engineering cost. > But that's besides the point. The behaviour is actually well defined There's a good reason to not use Javascript, if there's an option to use another language in the browser, that has nothing to do with JS's quality itself: context switching. Node.js is popular due in no small part to the fact that you have to use JS anyways. The purpose of GWT, as far as I'm aware, is to make it so you have Java as an option in the client.