This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
The project management may have some obvious problems (jOin dIsc0Rd sErVEr; w0rD "thEy" t0o p0liTicAl). But we really need an alternative to browsers funded by Google (Chrome and Firefox).
So I'll do my best to actually build from sources and see what can I help with. Attacking the author is helping nobody.
And for the folks who are saying "wHy n0t rUst", you can always show me the (rust) code.
And for the folks who are saying “wHy n0t rUst”, you can always show me the (rust) code.
https://github.com/servo/servo
I really wish they would publish flatpaks because I can't be arsed to either build the thing or get a non-standard precompiled binary to run on nixos.
"Ladybird uses a brand new engine based on web standards, without borrowing any code from other browsers." has the same energy as
Not really. They aren't inventing new standards. They are implementing an engine that confirms to existing standards.
In this case having more browser engines not under Google's control is probably a good thing. Although this effort might've been better spent working on Servo.
builds a new browser from scratch without borrowing existing code
still chooses to do it in C++
Epic fail
The dev has 30 years of experience with c++ and a lot of it was on browsers.
He tried to incorporate rust with the help of "JT", one of the original rust designers/devs and according to Andreas it didn't work that well due to the web being too objet oriented or something like that. They both worked together (well, mostly "JT") to create a new safe programming language called "yakt" that transpile to c++, but the project is currently pretty much dead because nobody is really working on it anymore.
I'm not sure 10 years old are allowed on the internet. Isn't it time for Coco and bed?
I agree that Rust would be an interesting choice for this project but there's a reason why this particular project is done in C++
Not sure if you are trying to be funny, but if not: enlighten us?
C++ is a very old, extremely complex language. There are arguably objectively better modern alternatives, such as Rust.
I agree that Rust is the way to go, but calling something "arguably" & "objectively" in the same breath is a bit of a paradox innit?
Well, it was more to recognize that there is no inherently better programming languages in theory, they all do the same stuff. And some languages are "better" at some stuff just due to the libraries available and nothing to do with the language itself. But yea I do think Rust is an objectively better language than C++.
Rust is great, but anybody developing something should have the ability to choose whatever programming language they prefer. If you want it made with rust, make it yourself.
Of course, but it still makes sense to think carefully about the advantages of disadvantages of the tools you use when starting any project.
Not everyone with the knowledge to identify this mistake is in a position to personally correct it. Do you have the time and resources to personally build a browser from scratch? No? Why do you assume a random commenter does?
It doesn't change the fact that Rust is similarly performant and much safer and will thus be faster to develop and less bug-prone. It's not a difficult assessment to make. If you want to explain why they're wrong you can talk about the issue on its merits, but you didn't choose to, presumably because you can't.
Their choice of programming language isn't a 'mistake'. It isn't something that is 'corrected'. It's a development choice, nothing more. That's the point. And if some 'random commenter' doesn't like that choice, that's their problem to fix - not the developers who are actually making the project.
You said they "should have the ability to choose whatever programming language they prefer". I have good news for you.
You have correctly identified that the developers are responsible for their own decisions. They are, you will be very relieved to hear, quite free to make as many poor decisions as they will. Nobody is going to force them to stop.
Other people are more than capable of identifying that those decisions are mistakes. Now, that could be argued with, you could explain how it's not a mistake.
But you haven't. You just said they should be allowed to do it, but nobody was arguing that they needed to be stopped, just that it was a bad decision.
Edit: this person didn't actually say that first quote, but the line of argument proceeded from there, and they did nothing to distance themselves from that point.
