2 ms·
> 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/vgd8P
by 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 agoWell, 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 agoAny 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 agoYou'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).