156 replies to this topic

[Zlip792]

Personally I liked Opera developers efforts for Presto engine but they had little user base so cost benefit was less. Webkit is free open source contributed by many many people so it will good for them switch but it will be monopoly. Which I hate...

[Boz]

Zlip792, on 14 February 2013 - 09:49, said:

Personally I liked Opera developers efforts for Presto engine but they had little user base so cost benefit was less. Webkit is free open source contributed by many many people so it will good for them switch but it will be monopoly. Which I hate...

Monopoly is really in regards to one company. If Chromium for example becomes the standard it won't be a monopoly as many companies and people contribute to it.

1st Step: Get everyone on Chromium/Webkit
2nd Step: Get it to be official standard where everyone contributes to and is tightly connected with W3C
3rd Step: Enjoy rapid innovation and progress on the web without waiting a decade for new features to trickle down and deal with different browsers that wanted to integrate and interpret the HTML/CSS/JS standards however they want.

There's a reason why we are still waiting on ECMAScript 6

Look at this mess:

http://kangax.github...mpat-table/es6/

[Zlip792]

Boz, on 14 February 2013 - 09:58, said:

Monopoly is really in regards to one company. If Chromium for example becomes the standard it won't be a monopoly as many companies and people contribute to it.

1st Step: Get everyone on Chromium/Webkit
2nd Step: Get it to be official standard where everyone contributes to and is tightly connected with W3C
3rd Step: Enjoy rapid innovation and progress on the web without waiting a decade for new features to trickle down and deal with different browsers that wanted to integrate and interpret the HTML/CSS/JS standards however they want.

There's a reason why we are still waiting on ECMAScript 6

Look at this mess:

http://kangax.github...mpat-table/es6/

No actually as some one on previous pages mentioned that sometime user contribution is ignored because other does not want in case of Webkit then this is sad fact. I am personally not a follower of Webkit or Chrome development except I read Chromium changelogs while I do follow Mozilla development quite much. Again Microsoft is quite silent and secretive except their Microsoft Connect for feedback.

Lets hope whatever happen, it will be in favour of developers, users both at a time.

[Zlip792]

BTW one general question? Whether they will go with Webkit or Webkit2 API, Webkit 2 API is same as Chrome multiprocess architecture (as far as I know) and used in Safari 5.2+ which never released for Windows? Am I right? So which one Opera choice?
I suggest Webkit 2 API..

[HawkMan]

Boz, on 14 February 2013 - 09:58, said:

Monopoly is really in regards to one company. If Chromium for example becomes the standard it won't be a monopoly as many companies and people contribute to it.

1st Step: Get everyone on Chromium/Webkit
2nd Step: Get it to be official standard where everyone contributes to and is tightly connected with W3C
3rd Step: Enjoy rapid innovation and progress on the web without waiting a decade for new features to trickle down and deal with different browsers that wanted to integrate and interpret the HTML/CSS/JS standards however they want.

There's a reason why we are still waiting on ECMAScript 6

Look at this mess:

http://kangax.github...mpat-table/es6/

I see you still don't understand the difference between a standard and software. It's important to have a standard and it let software be the standard. It stifles innovation, even when OS and breaks thievery purpose of a standard.

[+ViperAFK]

Zlip792, on 14 February 2013 - 12:30, said:

BTW one general question? Whether they will go with Webkit or Webkit2 API, Webkit 2 API is same as Chrome multiprocess architecture (as far as I know) and used in Safari 5.2+ which never released for Windows? Am I right? So which one Opera choice?
I suggest Webkit 2 API..

from the wording in the article, it sounds like opera is going to be based on chromium.

[HawkMan]

Boz, on 14 February 2013 - 09:39, said:

Well exactly.. that's the whole point.. if we had that on desktop it would 10x better than what we have now.

No it wouldn't... and I like how you ignored everything else in my post, par for the course of course when it comes to you.

[Boz]

HawkMan, on 14 February 2013 - 13:06, said:

No it wouldn't... and I like how you ignored everything else in my post, par for the course of course when it comes to you.

Developing HTML5 stuff for mobile where we really have two major webkit based browsers is 10 times easier than for desktop. I read your whole post, this FACT disproves your opinion.

[HawkMan]

Boz, on 14 February 2013 - 13:34, said:

Developing HTML5 stuff for mobile where we really have two major webkit based browsers is 10 times easier than for desktop. I read your whole post, this FACT disproves your opinion.

The easiest is of course to develop using the STANDARD, not using the prefixes at all until the prefixed function are actually standardized.

the only thing you're accomplishing here is giving away control of the web, AGAIN, and hindering innovation, AGAIN.

The fact you can't code and write the same code 15 times for no good reason is besides the fact. and the reason it's easier to code for mobile isn't because 90% of mobile internet users are on iOS/Webkit/Safar. it's because they'r eon mobile and mobile sites by default are simpler and easier.

omg it's easier to put together a 20 piece puzzle than a 500 pieze one, THE REVELATION!!!


It also doesn't help that the majority of code added to websites for browser specific functions are not there to ad functionality, but to falsely detect the browser(which is the wrong way anyway, you're supposed to detect what the browser supports, not the browser, but as a coder I suppose you know this...), and then most of the code for this again, is simply to push broken code to certain browsers. I mean look at the amount of webpages that suddenly work perfectly even better than in Chrome if you let opera pretend to be chrome.

The great holy google did this themselves right after they bought google docs. their very first update(this was before Chrome when IE had 90% market and FF was heavily paid by Google), the very first google update to the "google docs" before they even changed the name only did one thing. It used deep browser scanning to detect Opera(so changing the user agent wouldn't work) and sent broken code to it. there was NO other changes. just breaking the webapps in Opera, and suggestign they switch to the google supported FF.

[Zlip792]

ViperAFK, on 14 February 2013 - 12:58, said:

from the wording in the article, it sounds like opera is going to be based on chromium.

So Webkit1 with Chrome like multiprocess architecture. Thanks for pointing my thinking at that point as well.

[Jub Fequois]

Zlip792, on 14 February 2013 - 12:30, said:

BTW one general question? Whether they will go with Webkit or Webkit2 API, Webkit 2 API is same as Chrome multiprocess architecture (as far as I know) and used in Safari 5.2+ which never released for Windows? Am I right? So which one Opera choice?
I suggest Webkit 2 API..

WebKit2 and Chromium (Chrome) aren't the same. Chromium is based on WebKit "1" and Google developed their own multiprocess & sandbox environment and slapped it on top of it. WebKit2 is built differently, but offer similar functionality.

In my experience, while testing Safari and Chrome, is that WebKit2 seems to manage processes better (memory) but apart from that I couldn't really say... I'm by no means an expert in the area and I couldn't talk about/compare their security to save my soul.

I wish Opera had chosen WebKit2 in any case, but it seems to me quite clear that they're going to fork Chromium. It'll be interesting either way though. Opera have innovated so much already!

[Boz]

HawkMan, on 14 February 2013 - 13:42, said:

it's easier to code for mobile isn't because 90% of mobile internet users are on iOS/Webkit/Safar. it's because they'r eon mobile and mobile sites by default are simpler and easier.

omg it's easier to put together a 20 piece puzzle than a 500 pieze one, THE REVELATION!!!

Absolutely wrong..

Have you written serious web apps for mobile? Well I have.

The reason why it's easier to write is because of Webkit.. we have most of the features unified (with some slight differences that Apple added on iOS Safari but are really not deal breaking - aka you don't have to use them and have mostly to do with scaling and zooming in/out pages). The only real big difference is that Apple uses Nitro JS VM while Google uses V8 so there might be some discrepancy in JS performance but that's not really much of an issue as well because they are both pretty fast.

The reason HTML5 actually started getting used more and more is exactly BECAUSE of mobile. The first and more advanced web apps have been written for mobile first because the HTML5 features have been added rapidly for both Android and iOS. Both Android and iOS browsers have been able to innovate very quickly and bring new features and fix issues that didn't work.

CSS3 stuff has been working on both since pretty much the beginning when no desktop browser really supported it (I built things in 2008 for iOS that used cool 3D effects and crap). The only difference between the two were that Google got a bit later in to have hardware acceleration on CSS3 transitions and stuff but that was because of the OS and not really related with webkit.

Today even, HTML5 is hardly used on the desktop because of the mess it is in, however people have started building full blown apps with HTML5 on mobile and they are now combining with tools that package that code along with hardware APIs so we can access specific device capabilities (aka PhoneGap and others).

You won't see this ubiquity on the desktop web for a while. If we are lucky in 5 years. Which would make it about 10-11 years since HTML5 officially got to W3C/WHATWG.

Hell, even WebGL is now being introduced in Chrome on Android (via --enable-webgl flag - experimental) and most likely in Safari soon as well when Google officially pushes it.
And it's going to have 90%+ support on mobile years before it will have that ubiquity on desktop (if ever).

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say it's not easier.. it's 10 times easier. It's nicer for development too. Less waste of time and unnecessary code just to make your web app appear and work the same across browser. It's really a joy to develop for unlike for desktop.

[threetonesun]

Boz, on 14 February 2013 - 14:05, said:

Today even, HTML5 is hardly used on the desktop because of the mess it is in, however people have started building full blown apps with HTML5 on mobile and they are now combining with tools that package that code along with hardware APIs so we can access specific device capabilities (aka PhoneGap and others).

PhoneGap (owned by Adobe), other tools owned by other companies, and you think this is a good thing?

HTML is a markup language, and you can barely find a good agreement on how to just write a document that gets presented with standard markup that has a logical semantic outline, yet some companies want it to flash and dance and work as some magical do-it-all client side language which is a terrible idea. Five years out we're going to have HTML the document language, and HTML/js/CSS the application development language, which is fragmented but works on every device if you don't mind kludging it together with 3rd party tools.

[Zlip792]

Jub Fequois, on 14 February 2013 - 13:53, said:

WebKit2 and Chromium (Chrome) aren't the same. Chromium is based on WebKit "1" and Google developed their own multiprocess & sandbox environment and slapped it on top of it. WebKit2 is built differently, but offer similar functionality.

In my experience, while testing Safari and Chrome, is that WebKit2 seems to manage processes better (memory) but apart from that I couldn't really say... I'm by no means an expert in the area and I couldn't talk about/compare their security to save my soul.

I wish Opera had chosen WebKit2 in any case, but it seems to me quite clear that they're going to fork Chromium. It'll be interesting either way though. Opera have innovated so much already!

Thanks for information but I already know this though. Also same wish that Opera should go with Webkit 2 but as pointed by ViperAFK, they might go with Chrome approach.

[HawkMan]

Zlip792, on 14 February 2013 - 13:48, said:

So Webkit1 with Chrome like multiprocess architecture. Thanks for pointing my thinking at that point as well.

Multiprocess can be done with any rendering engine and has nothing to do with the actual rendering engine. It's the actual program and how that is programmed that defines that. hopefully Opera decides to do it as they currently do, multi process, but wrapped inside the opera file so your task manager isn't flooded by 50 opera.exe files. god that's annoying in chrome.

Personally I much prefer a well programmed browser like opera that doesn't crash, as opposed to a browser like chrome where the crashes are separated. to not affect the whole browser.