3 ms·

Please, tackle the _real_ issue: we need an implementation of a modern 'web browsers' using a 'simple computer language' (for instance C99+, namle C99 with few

Please, tackle the _real_ issue: we need an implementation of a modern 'web browsers' using a 'simple computer language' (for instance C99+, namle C99 with few bits of c11 for modern architecture programming).

dotancohen 2y ago
I understand the sentiment, but who are the "we" who "need" that?
- sylware 2y ago
  Humanity, not AI bots.
bramhaag 2y ago
Why do "we" need this?
- ramon156 2y ago
  Because "we" need a browser that doesn't need a rewrite in the next 20 years
  - sylware 2y ago
    big tech is evily smart: since everything is open source, they are still doing vendor lock-in via grotesque and absurd complexity and size, breaking little things here and there, or using unspecified part which is "implementation defined" etc. Not seeing that is borderline blindless than a lack of perspective. Open source is far from being enough anymore, we (the humanity) need lean open source (including that bloody SDK, which excludes de-facto ultra-complex computer language like c++/rust/java/etc).
- sylware 2y ago
  See above.
orbisvicis 2y ago
Don't forget lisp! This is particularly relevant because of the Nyxt browser which was also recently posted here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine Also c23 is supposed to have better unicode support but I've never really bothered internalizing the "translation character set" and whatnot.
- sylware 2y ago
  Come on, this was about the language syntax, not some external massive util library. Ofc, this web engine would implement mostly its own utils, since dependency on external kludge like unistring or ICU or even worse harfbuzz(c++!)... would nullify the advantage to depend on a simple computer language. I did not look that much into it but I can bet that 'lisp' browser is actually just a 'lisp front-end' to big tech web engines... namely a scam, please prove me wrong. I would write a browser in RISC-V assembly with a small macro pre-processor, but the issue with the web is its infinite scope killing any non big tech, real-life, alternative attempt, and not for the good reasons.
  - orbisvicis 2y ago
    Yes, but via rpc rather than bindings: https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/article/technical-design.org https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/article/technical-design.org I think it's an elegant design that sidesteps many issues, and since bindings aren't involved you are designing purely in the language of choice. You can't expect every project to reimplement every library down to the stdlib.
    - sylware 2y ago
      You always cherry-pick the code you want, and in the worse case scenario you port it or the part you want from it (open source powa). Often, performance critical code paths of significant size are assembly anyway or when small, they are built-in to maximize inlining to avoid a function call. And like it was exposed below: in this end, this is sort of not very honnest, because this is just another Big Tech engine front-end.
ComputerGuru 2y ago
Who is “we” and why do we need it in a “simple” language prone to memory errors where people have to non-portably reinvent every wheel? Signed, someone that writes and distributes apps/tools written in “less simple” languages and apps/tools written in zero-dependency and even libc-free C.
sourcepluck 2y ago
Nyxt already exists, and fits your description perfectly
- sylware 2y ago
  Indulge me and let me be lazy and answer this question: Is Nyxt _NOT_ just a front-end to one of the Big Tech web engines? (blink|geeko|webkit) I would be super pleased to be wrong...
  - sourcepluck 2y ago
    Oh sorry, just realised I replied to my own comment instead of yours :D see my response above!
- sourcepluck 2y ago
  Nyxt is basically a front-end to the Big Tech web engines, yes, but one that (I think sincerely, from my not-overly-technical standpoint) attempts to re-empower the user. I didn't understand your original point about needing "a modern web browser" with "a simple language" (I'm not sure it was clear, by itself...), but I read your other comments, and I understand your point better now, I think. I agree that "open source" itself is absolutely not enough, and that another prerequisite to fighting for practical computing freedom is to have "human"-sized tools. Fully on board with that (I wonder if you've seen the malleable systems forum, actually...). I think Nyxt would love to provide that, eventually, and are trying to fight that fight, on a stacked battleground, in an imperfect world. For example, gopher and gemini are supported. And they're trying to support different renderers. They're trying to make the browser fully configurable and programmable as far as they can, in spite of the shortcomings of the web. Tell me if this is completely beside your point, but in case it helps you in seeing what they're about, have a look at: https://nyxt-browser.com/article/command-line-programs.org https://nyxt-browser.com/article/command-line-programs.org Or, much more technical, too technical for me, and it's a bit dated so the exact design might have changed, but maybe you'll get something from the overview nonetheless: https://nyxt-browser.com/article/technical-design.org https://nyxt-browser.com/article/technical-design.org Maybe that's not enough, and you think the solution has to be more radical, but I don't know what it would be, other than a new set of networking protocols comes along and somehow supercedes the ones we have now. Which could happen, I don't know, I'm only still only learning about the ones we currently have :D Also, have you seen surfraw? Or do you have examples of the kind of thing you'd like to see being attempted in the wild? I'd be curious to see them. p.s. I responded to a point you made 8 days ago about email in a different thread [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42287607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42287607] and thought I'd say to you here in case you'd be interested in elaborating over there!

dotancohen 2y ago

I understand the sentiment, but who are the "we" who "need" that?

sylware 2y ago
Humanity, not AI bots.

bramhaag 2y ago

Why do "we" need this?

ramon156 2y ago
Because "we" need a browser that doesn't need a rewrite in the next 20 years
- sylware 2y ago
  big tech is evily smart: since everything is open source, they are still doing vendor lock-in via grotesque and absurd complexity and size, breaking little things here and there, or using unspecified part which is "implementation defined" etc. Not seeing that is borderline blindless than a lack of perspective. Open source is far from being enough anymore, we (the humanity) need lean open source (including that bloody SDK, which excludes de-facto ultra-complex computer language like c++/rust/java/etc).
sylware 2y ago
See above.

orbisvicis 2y ago

Don't forget lisp! This is particularly relevant because of the Nyxt browser which was also recently posted here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine Also c23 is supposed to have better unicode support but I've never really bothered internalizing the "translation character set" and whatnot.

sylware 2y ago
Come on, this was about the language syntax, not some external massive util library. Ofc, this web engine would implement mostly its own utils, since dependency on external kludge like unistring or ICU or even worse harfbuzz(c++!)... would nullify the advantage to depend on a simple computer language. I did not look that much into it but I can bet that 'lisp' browser is actually just a 'lisp front-end' to big tech web engines... namely a scam, please prove me wrong. I would write a browser in RISC-V assembly with a small macro pre-processor, but the issue with the web is its infinite scope killing any non big tech, real-life, alternative attempt, and not for the good reasons.
- orbisvicis 2y ago
  Yes, but via rpc rather than bindings: https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/article/technical-design.org https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/article/technical-design.org I think it's an elegant design that sidesteps many issues, and since bindings aren't involved you are designing purely in the language of choice. You can't expect every project to reimplement every library down to the stdlib.
  - sylware 2y ago
    You always cherry-pick the code you want, and in the worse case scenario you port it or the part you want from it (open source powa). Often, performance critical code paths of significant size are assembly anyway or when small, they are built-in to maximize inlining to avoid a function call. And like it was exposed below: in this end, this is sort of not very honnest, because this is just another Big Tech engine front-end.

ComputerGuru 2y ago

Who is “we” and why do we need it in a “simple” language prone to memory errors where people have to non-portably reinvent every wheel? Signed, someone that writes and distributes apps/tools written in “less simple” languages and apps/tools written in zero-dependency and even libc-free C.

sourcepluck 2y ago

Nyxt already exists, and fits your description perfectly

sylware 2y ago
Indulge me and let me be lazy and answer this question: Is Nyxt _NOT_ just a front-end to one of the Big Tech web engines? (blink|geeko|webkit) I would be super pleased to be wrong...
- sourcepluck 2y ago
  Oh sorry, just realised I replied to my own comment instead of yours :D see my response above!
sourcepluck 2y ago
Nyxt is basically a front-end to the Big Tech web engines, yes, but one that (I think sincerely, from my not-overly-technical standpoint) attempts to re-empower the user. I didn't understand your original point about needing "a modern web browser" with "a simple language" (I'm not sure it was clear, by itself...), but I read your other comments, and I understand your point better now, I think. I agree that "open source" itself is absolutely not enough, and that another prerequisite to fighting for practical computing freedom is to have "human"-sized tools. Fully on board with that (I wonder if you've seen the malleable systems forum, actually...). I think Nyxt would love to provide that, eventually, and are trying to fight that fight, on a stacked battleground, in an imperfect world. For example, gopher and gemini are supported. And they're trying to support different renderers. They're trying to make the browser fully configurable and programmable as far as they can, in spite of the shortcomings of the web. Tell me if this is completely beside your point, but in case it helps you in seeing what they're about, have a look at: https://nyxt-browser.com/article/command-line-programs.org https://nyxt-browser.com/article/command-line-programs.org Or, much more technical, too technical for me, and it's a bit dated so the exact design might have changed, but maybe you'll get something from the overview nonetheless: https://nyxt-browser.com/article/technical-design.org https://nyxt-browser.com/article/technical-design.org Maybe that's not enough, and you think the solution has to be more radical, but I don't know what it would be, other than a new set of networking protocols comes along and somehow supercedes the ones we have now. Which could happen, I don't know, I'm only still only learning about the ones we currently have :D Also, have you seen surfraw? Or do you have examples of the kind of thing you'd like to see being attempted in the wild? I'd be curious to see them. p.s. I responded to a point you made 8 days ago about email in a different thread [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42287607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42287607] and thought I'd say to you here in case you'd be interested in elaborating over there!