9 ms·

> Most people don't need No, what you mean is 'most greenfield web dev projects don't need...'. Most people do need those things, because assuming there's no

> Most people don't need No, what you mean is 'most greenfield web dev projects don't need...'. Most people do need those things, because assuming there's no civilisation spanning project to literally rewrite 90% of the web, without them their sites would break.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Most people do need those things, because assuming there's no civilisation spanning project to literally rewrite 90% of the web, without them their sites would break Sites most people visit do not require backwards compatiblity. And aside from like Google Docs, I doubt most folk are doing anything with WASM (outside plugins). Look, in a world where Google subsidises browser development, this isn't an issue. We don't need to compromise. But if that funding stream disappears, you do have to compromise. And I'd argue a simple browser doing away with some of the more-complicated stuff would be (a) maintainable and (b) popular enough to pay itself back.
- rcxdude 1y ago
  Maintainable, maybe. Popular, no. A browser where a good chunk of the web doesn't work is a browser that almost no-one will use.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > browser where a good chunk of the web doesn't work is a browser that almost no-one will use I think it could—it’s sort of the case on mobile—but it’s not a view I hold with the strongest conviction.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Unless you can make it so the only part that doesn't work is the bad part. A browser where ads don't work and tracking doesn't work but everything else works is a good browser.
Ekaros 1y ago
Rewriting everything seem to have been regular exercise in general... So I don't see problems with doing it once more. How many sites are actually say older than 5 years. And how much work would they need?
deeThrow94 1y ago
Well ok, we can stuff browsers in vms for archival purposes. That doesn't mean we need to support existing sites with future browsers.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Most people do need those things, because assuming there's no civilisation spanning project to literally rewrite 90% of the web, without them their sites would break Sites most people visit do not require backwards compatiblity. And aside from like Google Docs, I doubt most folk are doing anything with WASM (outside plugins). Look, in a world where Google subsidises browser development, this isn't an issue. We don't need to compromise. But if that funding stream disappears, you do have to compromise. And I'd argue a simple browser doing away with some of the more-complicated stuff would be (a) maintainable and (b) popular enough to pay itself back.

rcxdude 1y ago
Maintainable, maybe. Popular, no. A browser where a good chunk of the web doesn't work is a browser that almost no-one will use.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > browser where a good chunk of the web doesn't work is a browser that almost no-one will use I think it could—it’s sort of the case on mobile—but it’s not a view I hold with the strongest conviction.
- immibis 1y ago
  Unless you can make it so the only part that doesn't work is the bad part. A browser where ads don't work and tracking doesn't work but everything else works is a good browser.

Ekaros 1y ago

Rewriting everything seem to have been regular exercise in general... So I don't see problems with doing it once more. How many sites are actually say older than 5 years. And how much work would they need?

deeThrow94 1y ago

Well ok, we can stuff browsers in vms for archival purposes. That doesn't mean we need to support existing sites with future browsers.