4 ms·

> A modern browser assigns a thread to each process and monitors each thread That would be ideal, yes. Firefox still doesn't work this way, I think? Chrome (or

by cyphax 13y ago

> A modern browser assigns a thread to each process and monitors each thread That would be ideal, yes. Firefox still doesn't work this way, I think? Chrome (or rather: SRWare Iron in my case) does, though: this link, which I obviously had to click (I make no excuse :P) did crash the tab I opened it in, but it had zero influence on the rest of the tabs, or the interface in general.

lutusp 13y ago
> That would be ideal, yes. Firefox still doesn't work this way, I think? True. The current Firefox locks up, then announces a crash: http://i.imgur.com/vgd8PLV.png http://i.imgur.com/vgd8PLV.png So on that basis, Firefox isn't a "modern browser". :) Any JavaScript that hogs the thread it's running in will cause this kind of problem. If the thread happens to be the same one the browser is running under, then "crash" is a fair description.
- sc2001 13y ago
  Well, it certainly crashes on all my Windows flavors (XP, 7, 8x64). Firefox isn't exactly the poster child for stability, can't tell whether it ever was...
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Any browser that can be locked up by a bit of JavaScript that hogs the thread really needs to have NoScript enabled. The reason is there are too many easy ways to write a processor hog, either intentionally -- function hog_processor() { while(true) { } } -- or unintentionally, by not knowing something about programming: function beginner_error_run_forever() { for(var x = 0;x != 10;x += .1) { // code here } }
    - sc2001 13y ago
      You're right, but Today's World really relies on JavaScript and browsers development could, well, weigh it a bit more. Fighting on speed records might look good on browser's CV but for me personally doesn't matter zit - I'd take a stabler Firefox over a speedier one any second (I say this after 2 crashes today, on 2 different machines).

by cyphax 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> That would be ideal, yes. Firefox still doesn't work this way, I think? True. The current Firefox locks up, then announces a crash: http://i.imgur.com/vgd8PLV.png http://i.imgur.com/vgd8PLV.png So on that basis, Firefox isn't a "modern browser". :) Any JavaScript that hogs the thread it's running in will cause this kind of problem. If the thread happens to be the same one the browser is running under, then "crash" is a fair description.

sc2001 13y ago
Well, it certainly crashes on all my Windows flavors (XP, 7, 8x64). Firefox isn't exactly the poster child for stability, can't tell whether it ever was...
- lutusp 13y ago
  Any browser that can be locked up by a bit of JavaScript that hogs the thread really needs to have NoScript enabled. The reason is there are too many easy ways to write a processor hog, either intentionally -- function hog_processor() { while(true) { } } -- or unintentionally, by not knowing something about programming: function beginner_error_run_forever() { for(var x = 0;x != 10;x += .1) { // code here } }
  - sc2001 13y ago
    You're right, but Today's World really relies on JavaScript and browsers development could, well, weigh it a bit more. Fighting on speed records might look good on browser's CV but for me personally doesn't matter zit - I'd take a stabler Firefox over a speedier one any second (I say this after 2 crashes today, on 2 different machines).