6 ms·

Many people think of a browser as a tool for displaying text and pictures, with maybe a bit of JS code and some CSS effects on the side. That was true in the la

Many people think of a browser as a tool for displaying text and pictures, with maybe a bit of JS code and some CSS effects on the side. That was true in the late 90s, but these days a browser is actually a fully-fledged programming environment that also happens to have some incredibly sophisticated multimedia capabilities: text, images, video, audio, animations, 3d graphics, etc. The most popular websites run quite amazing amounts of code, and JavaScript execution is usually the dominant consumer of memory. If you want a deeper understanding, visit about:memory in Firefox you'll get a detailed breakdown of how memory is used.

bru 12y ago
>and JavaScript execution is usually the dominant consumer of memory. That's forgetting the DOM, which is often the actual cause for slowness & memory consumption, but gets far less spotlight than JavaScript. This is also a reason why a framework like react.js is so interesting: it circumvents the real DOM when computing (on a virtual DOM), and only applies the end result.
- nnethercote 12y ago
  In my experience, JS memory usage is nearly always much higher than DOM. For example, my current Firefox session has 16 tabs open and ABP enabled. JS memory usage is over 600 MiB, whereas DOM memory usage is only 120 MiB.
nfoz 12y ago
> That was true in the late 90s, but these days a browser is actually a fully-fledged programming environment that also happens to have some incredibly sophisticated multimedia capabilities: text, images, video, audio, animations, 3d graphics, etc. Maybe I just miss the 90s, but I would much rather have the simple content browser than a "full-fledged programming environment", especially since all of that content is coming from the random untrusted intarwebs. Anyone want to write a browser engine that skips all the modern BS and just does a good job delivering mostly-static webpages?
- arikrak 12y ago
  You can disable javascript or anything else in browsers, but you won't have a good experience on the web.
- ionforce 12y ago
  Define "modern BS".
  - crististm 12y ago
    What about "tons of JS just for the sake of it"? Ever since google maps, everyone started using JS like there is no tomorrow. And what came out of it? HTML is no longer enough. Firefox doesn't give option of disabling JS (1) (1) about:config doesn't count
    - vacri 12y ago
      When I install firefox, I only have two plugins. Flashblock and NoScript. NoScript is actively maintained and lets you filter js with all sorts of options, defaulting to 'none at all'. Most sites work either perfectly or to some degree, though some fail to provide any content at all without js. Given how trivial it is to install the plugin, I think that counts as firefox allowing disabling js.
- thristian 12y ago
  If you want Dillo and/or w3m, they're still available!
  - chris_wot 12y ago
    Is Dillo still going strong?
    - keithpeter 12y ago
      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/dillo.png https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/dillo.png Xubuntu 14.04 has version 3.0.3 with docs dated April 2013 You won't be logging into dropbox with dillo alas! Mighty fast for reading and cat pictures.
hollerith 12y ago
>That was true in the late 90s, but these days a browser is actually a fully-fledged programming environment Yes, I know, and I don't like it. It makes it more complicated and unreliable to use the web to view text and images.
clarry 12y ago
> Many people think of a browser as a tool for displaying text and pictures, with maybe a bit of JS code and some CSS effects on the side. That was true in the late 90s [..] It still is for many of us who complain about browser (and web content) bloat. We are on the web for text and pictures, primarily. The things we do online hasn't changed much since the 90s. Having sophisticated multimedia capabilities is irrelevant when we're in it for the content that matters.
- Crito 12y ago
  Exactly. What makes up the bulk of our internet browsing? Pages like this: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/ http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/ ? Or pages like HN or wikipedia articles? We seem to be trading resources for capabilities that we rarely leverage for any tangible benefit.
- GregBuchholz 12y ago
  The whole personal computing ecosystem as it stands today seems like a huge failure of imagination. http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm

bru 12y ago

>and JavaScript execution is usually the dominant consumer of memory. That's forgetting the DOM, which is often the actual cause for slowness & memory consumption, but gets far less spotlight than JavaScript. This is also a reason why a framework like react.js is so interesting: it circumvents the real DOM when computing (on a virtual DOM), and only applies the end result.

nnethercote 12y ago
In my experience, JS memory usage is nearly always much higher than DOM. For example, my current Firefox session has 16 tabs open and ABP enabled. JS memory usage is over 600 MiB, whereas DOM memory usage is only 120 MiB.

nfoz 12y ago

> That was true in the late 90s, but these days a browser is actually a fully-fledged programming environment that also happens to have some incredibly sophisticated multimedia capabilities: text, images, video, audio, animations, 3d graphics, etc. Maybe I just miss the 90s, but I would much rather have the simple content browser than a "full-fledged programming environment", especially since all of that content is coming from the random untrusted intarwebs. Anyone want to write a browser engine that skips all the modern BS and just does a good job delivering mostly-static webpages?

arikrak 12y ago
You can disable javascript or anything else in browsers, but you won't have a good experience on the web.
ionforce 12y ago
Define "modern BS".
- crististm 12y ago
  What about "tons of JS just for the sake of it"? Ever since google maps, everyone started using JS like there is no tomorrow. And what came out of it? HTML is no longer enough. Firefox doesn't give option of disabling JS (1) (1) about:config doesn't count
  - vacri 12y ago
    When I install firefox, I only have two plugins. Flashblock and NoScript. NoScript is actively maintained and lets you filter js with all sorts of options, defaulting to 'none at all'. Most sites work either perfectly or to some degree, though some fail to provide any content at all without js. Given how trivial it is to install the plugin, I think that counts as firefox allowing disabling js.
thristian 12y ago
If you want Dillo and/or w3m, they're still available!
- chris_wot 12y ago
  Is Dillo still going strong?
  - keithpeter 12y ago
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/dillo.png https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/dillo.png Xubuntu 14.04 has version 3.0.3 with docs dated April 2013 You won't be logging into dropbox with dillo alas! Mighty fast for reading and cat pictures.

hollerith 12y ago

>That was true in the late 90s, but these days a browser is actually a fully-fledged programming environment Yes, I know, and I don't like it. It makes it more complicated and unreliable to use the web to view text and images.

clarry 12y ago

> Many people think of a browser as a tool for displaying text and pictures, with maybe a bit of JS code and some CSS effects on the side. That was true in the late 90s [..] It still is for many of us who complain about browser (and web content) bloat. We are on the web for text and pictures, primarily. The things we do online hasn't changed much since the 90s. Having sophisticated multimedia capabilities is irrelevant when we're in it for the content that matters.

Crito 12y ago
Exactly. What makes up the bulk of our internet browsing? Pages like this: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/ http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/ ? Or pages like HN or wikipedia articles? We seem to be trading resources for capabilities that we rarely leverage for any tangible benefit.
GregBuchholz 12y ago
The whole personal computing ecosystem as it stands today seems like a huge failure of imagination. http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm