3 ms·

Regardless of actual use as an (embedded) browser, it is useful in the sense that it can be used to provide (another) source of validation about whether specs a

Regardless of actual use as an (embedded) browser, it is useful in the sense that it can be used to provide (another) source of validation about whether specs and WPT [1] tests are properly and clearly defined. That helps for long term browser compatibility. [1] https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental&label=master&product=servo&aligned https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental&label=master&pro...

charcircuit 9d ago
>long term browser compatibility Making a new browser engine hurts browser compatibility more than it helps it. It now becomes one more target that needs to be tested against, limitations need to be kept tracked of, etc. The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. In regards to the standard we can use LLMs to cross reference the spec, with tests, and with the implementation to make sure all match.
- teekert 9d ago
  Ah, you must be too young to have experienced early Internet Explorer, which attempted just this.
  - charcircuit 9d ago
    Internet Explorer was not open source acting as engine everyone's browser could use and it got abandoned by Microsoft. It is not the same situation.
    - teekert 9d ago
      One could argue that effectively Blink is also not open source. At any rate users don't have power over it, as witnessed by the manifest v3 stuff jammed down our throats.
      - pygy_ 9d ago
        Churn makes it impossible to keep up a fork, Google weaponizes its manpower, making the "open source" argument moot.
        charcircuit 9d ago
        There are many active forks that are an existence proof that it's possible. It's also a ton of man power to maintain your own browser engine.
    - le-mark 9d ago
      Monocultures are bad full stop. Blink is corporate controlled open source, which has been clearly less than.
    - mohamedkoubaa 9d ago
      At this point Microsoft should just open source it for science.
- Oxodao 9d ago
  yeah in a perfect world google dictates how the standard will evolve, we kill all competition so we're sure that you have only one target to build your software against, I'm sure a monopoly will greatly improves innovation and not be used to stiffen competition. /s
  - charcircuit 9d ago
    Using Blink doesn't mean you have to defer all decisions to Google. You just benefit from not having to duplicate work.
    - samus 9d ago
      Except one does since Google is the primary maintainer. Anyway, work on other browser engines is not duplicated or wasted.
      - charcircuit 9d ago
        It's easier maintaining a fork of Blink than an entirely different engine. Google being the primary maintainer doesn't mean that browsers can't make large forks. >work on other browser engines is not duplicated or wasted. How is having N engine developers implement some new addition to the EMCAScript or CSS standard for each of their engines not duplicated work?
        samus 8d ago
        > It's easier maintaining a fork of Blink than an entirely different engine. Google being the primary maintainer doesn't mean that browsers can't make large forks. Maintaining a fork is not fun as taking patches from the origin repo becomes more complicated the longer the fork exists and the bigger the divergence becomes. > How is having N engine developers implement some new addition to the EMCAScript or CSS standard for each of their engines not duplicated work? It would be duplicated only if they all maintained, say, a Blink fork.
    - kryptiskt 9d ago
- latexr 9d ago
  > The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. That’s what makes Google more dominant, and if you think that’s a good idea you should really put down your LLM and go read up on a bit of history. Do you want to live in a world where a single company controls your access to the web? Are you eager to navigate through ad pages with a little bit of web? To have even more of your data mined? Browser diversity may be a bit annoying for developers, but it is good for users, and developers are users too. When there’s a lack of diversity, everyone but the dominant player is squeezed.
  - charcircuit 9d ago
    Google's dominance comes from market share not from owning upstream. If a different fork took 90% market share that fork would have the dominance and power.
    - samus 9d ago
      And that market share is maintained by integration with Android and low-key sabotage of others browsers, especially Firefox. Similar to how Microsoft maintained its monopoly decades ago.
      - charcircuit 9d ago
        Whether a new browser uses a brand new engine or not that doesn't stop Chrome being integrated with Android.
        samus 8d ago
        The argument was not about stopping Chrome from becoming integrated into Android.
    - latexr 9d ago
      > If a different fork took 90% That can only happen if we don’t all focus resources on Blink, which is the point. By definition, we can only have other engines if diversity is a thing. The problem isn’t specifically Google (though they are a problem), but any one individual company having all the power.
- embedding-shape 9d ago
  > The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. Lol, for Blink perhaps, what about the rest of the ecosystem, the web and the users, like the ones who don't even use Blink? Very idealistic point-of-view with no basis in reality, sadly, because wouldn't it be nice if we could care about just one engine?

charcircuit 9d ago

>long term browser compatibility Making a new browser engine hurts browser compatibility more than it helps it. It now becomes one more target that needs to be tested against, limitations need to be kept tracked of, etc. The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. In regards to the standard we can use LLMs to cross reference the spec, with tests, and with the implementation to make sure all match.

teekert 9d ago
Ah, you must be too young to have experienced early Internet Explorer, which attempted just this.
- charcircuit 9d ago
  Internet Explorer was not open source acting as engine everyone's browser could use and it got abandoned by Microsoft. It is not the same situation.
  - teekert 9d ago
    One could argue that effectively Blink is also not open source. At any rate users don't have power over it, as witnessed by the manifest v3 stuff jammed down our throats.
    - pygy_ 9d ago
      Churn makes it impossible to keep up a fork, Google weaponizes its manpower, making the "open source" argument moot.
      - charcircuit 9d ago
        There are many active forks that are an existence proof that it's possible. It's also a ton of man power to maintain your own browser engine.
  - le-mark 9d ago
    Monocultures are bad full stop. Blink is corporate controlled open source, which has been clearly less than.
  - mohamedkoubaa 9d ago
    At this point Microsoft should just open source it for science.
Oxodao 9d ago
yeah in a perfect world google dictates how the standard will evolve, we kill all competition so we're sure that you have only one target to build your software against, I'm sure a monopoly will greatly improves innovation and not be used to stiffen competition. /s
- charcircuit 9d ago
  Using Blink doesn't mean you have to defer all decisions to Google. You just benefit from not having to duplicate work.
  - samus 9d ago
    Except one does since Google is the primary maintainer. Anyway, work on other browser engines is not duplicated or wasted.
    - charcircuit 9d ago
      It's easier maintaining a fork of Blink than an entirely different engine. Google being the primary maintainer doesn't mean that browsers can't make large forks. >work on other browser engines is not duplicated or wasted. How is having N engine developers implement some new addition to the EMCAScript or CSS standard for each of their engines not duplicated work?
      - samus 8d ago
        > It's easier maintaining a fork of Blink than an entirely different engine. Google being the primary maintainer doesn't mean that browsers can't make large forks. Maintaining a fork is not fun as taking patches from the origin repo becomes more complicated the longer the fork exists and the bigger the divergence becomes. > How is having N engine developers implement some new addition to the EMCAScript or CSS standard for each of their engines not duplicated work? It would be duplicated only if they all maintained, say, a Blink fork.
  - kryptiskt 9d ago
latexr 9d ago
> The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. That’s what makes Google more dominant, and if you think that’s a good idea you should really put down your LLM and go read up on a bit of history. Do you want to live in a world where a single company controls your access to the web? Are you eager to navigate through ad pages with a little bit of web? To have even more of your data mined? Browser diversity may be a bit annoying for developers, but it is good for users, and developers are users too. When there’s a lack of diversity, everyone but the dominant player is squeezed.
- charcircuit 9d ago
  Google's dominance comes from market share not from owning upstream. If a different fork took 90% market share that fork would have the dominance and power.
  - samus 9d ago
    And that market share is maintained by integration with Android and low-key sabotage of others browsers, especially Firefox. Similar to how Microsoft maintained its monopoly decades ago.
    - charcircuit 9d ago
      Whether a new browser uses a brand new engine or not that doesn't stop Chrome being integrated with Android.
      - samus 8d ago
        The argument was not about stopping Chrome from becoming integrated into Android.
  - latexr 9d ago
    > If a different fork took 90% That can only happen if we don’t all focus resources on Blink, which is the point. By definition, we can only have other engines if diversity is a thing. The problem isn’t specifically Google (though they are a problem), but any one individual company having all the power.
embedding-shape 9d ago
> The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. Lol, for Blink perhaps, what about the rest of the ecosystem, the web and the users, like the ones who don't even use Blink? Very idealistic point-of-view with no basis in reality, sadly, because wouldn't it be nice if we could care about just one engine?