3 ms·

>Man, when you put it like that, why did we ever leave IE6? You could write your HTML just once and be sure it would work everywhere! We left it because a) it

>Man, when you put it like that, why did we ever leave IE6? You could write your HTML just once and be sure it would work everywhere! We left it because a) it stagnated and b) it didn't work on all platforms. Surely not because of some zeal to support multiple independent implementations. Since Webkit has neither problems, seeing that: a) it's open source portable to all platforms with ports existing for all major platforms and tons of minor ones. b) it's an engine, not a browser, and as such supports several widely varying browser GUIs, from Safari to Chrome to mobile browsers to command line tools. c) It moves at a fast pace with lots of companies contributing to it, from Apple, to Google, to Nokia, to Adobe, to Samsung, to RIM to ensure that. It doesn't make much sense to use anything else. You could achieve all the dreams Mozilla has AND use Webkit at the same time. Just add your other stuff on top of it, instead of in a completely different implementation. I'm not even against experimenting with new engine ideas. If you need to create a completely different engine do it, but only because there is an important difference and reason to do so. Today we just have different engines not because of some special differentiating factor or novel way, but just because a few companies hold to their old engines from the early days of the Web (namely Mozilla, Microsoft and Opera). Almost everybody else that came after Webkit has adopted it. Some things just make sense to have one single and common base. The same way most of us use, say, OpenSSH, and don't think much about it.

thristian 14y ago
No software is infinitely malleable; no matter how much flexibility or portability you design into a code-base, it'll still only really work in situations that at least resemble the ones in which it was originally designed. Currently, the situations Webkit was designed for are a really good match for the situations we have (desktops, laptops, tablets, phones), and it's very difficult to find a situation where Webkit isn't a great choice. However, if there's one thing to learn from history, it's that situations change and usually in unpredictable ways. I have no idea what possible up-set to the computing landscape could arrive and make Webkit unfeasible, but I'm pretty sure something will change eventually, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a backup plan? Also, consider what might happen if Webkit were the only browser engine. Sure, Webkit moves at a fast pace now, when it has competition from both other browsers and native apps, but consider that the two biggest supporters of Webkit both benefit directly from people using native apps over web-apps. Sure, they benefit from web-apps too, but Apple in particular gets actual revenue directly from native apps, so if they didn't have other browsers to compete with, maybe Webkit wouldn't be as shiny and cutting-edge as it is. I mean, it already renders existing websites, and anything that needs abilities the current web-platform doesn't support can just be implemented as a native app, right? > If you need to create a completely different engine do it, but only because there is an important difference and reason to do so. The thing is, if Webkit were the only browser-engine, even if you did come up with some completely different engine, your idea would be useless. You wouldn't be able to achieve compatibility with existing sites without mimicking all the weird bugs and corner-cases of Webkit, which would not be feasible, and if your idea is so completely different you can't just fork the Webkit code and add your idea on top. > You could achieve all the dreams Mozilla has AND use Webkit at the same time. "all the dreams Mozilla has" is pretty much "make sure there are always multiple independent, interoperable implementations of the Web technology stack", so no, that wouldn't really be possible. :)
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >However, if there's one thing to learn from history, it's that situations change and usually in unpredictable ways. I have no idea what possible up-set to the computing landscape could arrive and make Webkit unfeasible, but I'm pretty sure something will change eventually, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a backup plan? Sure, but that "backup plan" wouldn't be another similar engine codebase, like Trident or Gecko. I can't fathom any future technical case where those would do but Webkit would not. But I think I covered that in my comment concerning alternative engines. Make one if you have a real need to implement something different to cover a new situation or provide something not there today. Not merely to keep your own mostly same implementation that introduces slight incompatibilities and standards lag. Current alternative engines do the latter. >Also, consider what might happen if Webkit were the only browser engine. Sure, Webkit moves at a fast pace now, when it has competition from both other browsers and native apps, but consider that the two biggest supporters of Webkit both benefit directly from people using native apps over web-apps. Sure, they benefit from web-apps too, but Apple in particular gets actual revenue directly from native apps, so if they didn't have other browsers to compete with, maybe Webkit wouldn't be as shiny and cutting-edge as it is. I don't think this is true. For Google is isn't true at all: it makes more money from people using the web than from people using native apps. As for Apple, well, they started the whole webkit project, and they don't make much from native apps anyway. They make their money from devices (which are used to browse the web also, so need a top notch engine) and laughably less from selling native apps (it's just a side business for them). Plus, all this time with native apps and the like, they have enhanced Webkit and mobile Safari the same. But, let's say that what you say is true: if some companies indeed favored native apps instead of web apps, wouldn't that make even more important that all other companies that care about the web flock to maintain ONE and only engine, instead of working each in it's own engine? That way they could make it as good as it can be, remove compatibility issues and generally make the web attractive and achieve progress and new features faster. >The thing is, if Webkit were the only browser-engine, even if you did come up with some completely different engine, your idea would be useless. You wouldn't be able to achieve compatibility with existing sites without mimicking all the weird bugs and corner-cases of Webkit, which would not be feasible, and if your idea is so completely different you can't just fork the Webkit code and add your idea on top. The thing you describe as bad is actually BETTER than what you have to do today. Because today, if you come up with some "completely different engine", in order to "achieve compatibility with existing sites" you would not just have to "mimic all the weird bugs and corner-cases of Webkit" but also those of the other major engines. Better to have just ONE engine to mimic, no?

thristian 14y ago

No software is infinitely malleable; no matter how much flexibility or portability you design into a code-base, it'll still only really work in situations that at least resemble the ones in which it was originally designed. Currently, the situations Webkit was designed for are a really good match for the situations we have (desktops, laptops, tablets, phones), and it's very difficult to find a situation where Webkit isn't a great choice. However, if there's one thing to learn from history, it's that situations change and usually in unpredictable ways. I have no idea what possible up-set to the computing landscape could arrive and make Webkit unfeasible, but I'm pretty sure something will change eventually, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a backup plan? Also, consider what might happen if Webkit were the only browser engine. Sure, Webkit moves at a fast pace now, when it has competition from both other browsers and native apps, but consider that the two biggest supporters of Webkit both benefit directly from people using native apps over web-apps. Sure, they benefit from web-apps too, but Apple in particular gets actual revenue directly from native apps, so if they didn't have other browsers to compete with, maybe Webkit wouldn't be as shiny and cutting-edge as it is. I mean, it already renders existing websites, and anything that needs abilities the current web-platform doesn't support can just be implemented as a native app, right? > If you need to create a completely different engine do it, but only because there is an important difference and reason to do so. The thing is, if Webkit were the only browser-engine, even if you did come up with some completely different engine, your idea would be useless. You wouldn't be able to achieve compatibility with existing sites without mimicking all the weird bugs and corner-cases of Webkit, which would not be feasible, and if your idea is so completely different you can't just fork the Webkit code and add your idea on top. > You could achieve all the dreams Mozilla has AND use Webkit at the same time. "all the dreams Mozilla has" is pretty much "make sure there are always multiple independent, interoperable implementations of the Web technology stack", so no, that wouldn't really be possible. :)

pretoriusB 14y ago
>However, if there's one thing to learn from history, it's that situations change and usually in unpredictable ways. I have no idea what possible up-set to the computing landscape could arrive and make Webkit unfeasible, but I'm pretty sure something will change eventually, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a backup plan? Sure, but that "backup plan" wouldn't be another similar engine codebase, like Trident or Gecko. I can't fathom any future technical case where those would do but Webkit would not. But I think I covered that in my comment concerning alternative engines. Make one if you have a real need to implement something different to cover a new situation or provide something not there today. Not merely to keep your own mostly same implementation that introduces slight incompatibilities and standards lag. Current alternative engines do the latter. >Also, consider what might happen if Webkit were the only browser engine. Sure, Webkit moves at a fast pace now, when it has competition from both other browsers and native apps, but consider that the two biggest supporters of Webkit both benefit directly from people using native apps over web-apps. Sure, they benefit from web-apps too, but Apple in particular gets actual revenue directly from native apps, so if they didn't have other browsers to compete with, maybe Webkit wouldn't be as shiny and cutting-edge as it is. I don't think this is true. For Google is isn't true at all: it makes more money from people using the web than from people using native apps. As for Apple, well, they started the whole webkit project, and they don't make much from native apps anyway. They make their money from devices (which are used to browse the web also, so need a top notch engine) and laughably less from selling native apps (it's just a side business for them). Plus, all this time with native apps and the like, they have enhanced Webkit and mobile Safari the same. But, let's say that what you say is true: if some companies indeed favored native apps instead of web apps, wouldn't that make even more important that all other companies that care about the web flock to maintain ONE and only engine, instead of working each in it's own engine? That way they could make it as good as it can be, remove compatibility issues and generally make the web attractive and achieve progress and new features faster. >The thing is, if Webkit were the only browser-engine, even if you did come up with some completely different engine, your idea would be useless. You wouldn't be able to achieve compatibility with existing sites without mimicking all the weird bugs and corner-cases of Webkit, which would not be feasible, and if your idea is so completely different you can't just fork the Webkit code and add your idea on top. The thing you describe as bad is actually BETTER than what you have to do today. Because today, if you come up with some "completely different engine", in order to "achieve compatibility with existing sites" you would not just have to "mimic all the weird bugs and corner-cases of Webkit" but also those of the other major engines. Better to have just ONE engine to mimic, no?