Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
xXEpicxXXxFailXx wrote:
Safari is fast on Macs, and that's that.
Internet Explorer just plain out sucks.
Firefox is ok, for some people.
Google Chrome is simple, and therefore fast.
I've tried out a couple others, but they just weren't notable.

I like Firefox, but everything is just too "bulky" if you know what I mean. It has extra customization options, and more styles. I don't like how downloading works, I personally *hides* like IE's method better then Firefox.

I use Chrome because there are no toolbars, or annoying extra stuff, but only the tabs and the one bar. It always renders correctly, and speed is great. My only Google problem is sometimes the extensions don't work properly. But this isn't Google's fault, as they are 3rd party.

I like Firefox, but it is my 2nd browser of choice.


just quoting him, because it pretty much sums it up
So what you are saying is you are not adding to the conversation for the sake of not adding to the conversation qazz?
No, I am saying that what xxepic said pretty sums everything up
alberthrocks wrote:
Of course, there's a certain Firefox that is aiming themselves to also become the multiprocess nastiness. The only good thing with doing that is that I can kill Flash anytime with "pkill -f flash", and maybe some problematic page loading. But that's all - it's cluttery and annoying to see in a process list.


The new firefox is running plugins in a separate process. Probably a good idea, everyone hates it when a plugin crashes and takes the browser with it (*cough, flash, cough*), or when a plugin takes for bloody ever to load thus making appear as though the browser hung (*cough, adobe reader, cough*)

Quote:
Kllrnohj: XUL is terrifying, and is certainly Mozilla's weakness. It definitely is nice.... for creating addons and such. But other than that, it more or less serves as something to be removed and replaced with a compatible, efficient toolkit. The sad thing is that Mozilla hates that, and even thinks that everyone would use it! (For anything else besides web development, aka as a toolkit) I recall the wxMozilla project, in which the devs asked for help with it (basically, a browser widget control). They didn't get any help, and were pretty much coldly rejected, since there was "competition". Guess where that project went? WebKit, of course! wxWebKit is the new project, and it works nicely. XUL and Mozilla's sillyness? Down the drain - the only thing(s) supporting it are Mozilla apps, and even they are having a hard time staying relevant.

I love Firefox, and I love their awesome addons. But I hate Mozilla's attitude, and their insistence on using their flawed toolkit, XUL.

[/rant]


Do you have any actual *technical* reasons to back that up? No, of course you don't (because XUL is actually pretty cool, perhaps even a head of its time), you just want to rant on it because it's the "cool" thing to do.

Also, wxMozilla wasn't replaced with wxWebKit, it was replaced with wxWebConnect, which, surprise surprise, uses Mozilla's Gecko Engine, aka XULRunner. http://www.kirix.com/labs/wxwebconnect.html

Quote:
EDIT: I've just tested out Fennec, and all I can say is: SLOW, HORRIFYINGLY SLOW, MORE HORRIFYING THAN XUL ITSELF.
Interaction is very sluggish, and nothing even renders correctly. Mind you, this is not even on a mobile device - a LAPTOP. 2.2 ish GHz, and they expect this to run on a slower 1.0 GHz mobile device? They even called this abomination a BETA. Beta quality software isn't this kind. If Mozilla thinks that way, they really need to wake up.

And a screenshot for your terrified viewing pleasure:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1016340/PublicPictures/SlowFennec/BadRendering.png

No wonder people aren't really excited about Fennec...


Fennec isn't being built for x86 you idiot. Fennec for desktop is for developers to do tests, it isn't for anyone to actually use.

Fennec 2 is also still in Alpha 1, it's not a beta yet. You are bitching that their are bugs in an ALPHA 1. Well no shit there are bugs in an alpha. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Also, don't confuse a beta with Google's definition of a beta. Betas often are buggy, especially the first couple of beta releases.
Kllrnohj wrote:
The new firefox is running plugins in a separate process. Probably a good idea, everyone hates it when a plugin crashes and takes the browser with it (*cough, flash, cough*), or when a plugin takes for bloody ever to load thus making appear as though the browser hung (*cough, adobe reader, cough*)

Indeed, but you still forget the other part of the Electrolysis project: web page processes. (I'm hesitant to call it "tabbed processes", since that might not be their design.) If they do it right, *maybe* it'll work out. Otherwise, if it's fast in one process, keep it there.

Kllrnohj wrote:
Do you have any actual *technical* reasons to back that up? No, of course you don't (because XUL is actually pretty cool, perhaps even a head of its time), you just want to rant on it because it's the "cool" thing to do.

Also, wxMozilla wasn't replaced with wxWebKit, it was replaced with wxWebConnect, which, surprise surprise, uses Mozilla's Gecko Engine, aka XULRunner. http://www.kirix.com/labs/wxwebconnect.html

They have a VERY strange way of doing things, which IMO is way too much for a simple application, nor an advanced one. Why would I toss Javascript in an application? It's the weirdest, niche kind of toolkit. (And yes, I know there's XPCom to actually play with C/C++.)

Oh, and a fun plus: You get to toss an XULRunner on it too!

The point is this: XUL is not for serious application development, although Mozilla likes to think that way. Sure, it's great for Firefox addons and such, maybe a web app or 2. But for application development? Pull your head out of the clouds, Mozilla. Only a few people I know use XUL (and one of them is a stupid idiot who loves to steal others' work). And wxWidgets is 1000x higher than you. Quite a few FOSS projects (and commercial ones too) use wxWidgets. Stop competing and start making your flagship web browser faster!

wxMozilla IS replaced with wxWebKit, much to your dismay it seems. The developers of wxMozilla gave their project to a company. That project, wxWebConnect, is one of the WORST I've ever seen. Did all the steps, added the engines in, and.... crash. (To be precise, nothing shows up, and after closing it, seg fault. Go figure.) One of the devs then decided to switch to WebKit for implementing the widget, and voila - it works! Smile Don't believe me? Look at the dev usernames, and find a similarity. And I talked to the dev himself on IRC. Cool guy, and he's the guy who told me the story. I don't like the fact that I have to get an ObjC compiler and libs to get it running, but it's worth the effort.

Kllrnohj wrote:
Fennec isn't being built for x86 you idiot. Fennec for desktop is for developers to do tests, it isn't for anyone to actually use.

Fennec 2 is also still in Alpha 1, it's not a beta yet. You are bitching that their are bugs in an ALPHA 1. Well no shit there are bugs in an alpha. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Also, don't confuse a beta with Google's definition of a beta. Betas often are buggy, especially the first couple of beta releases.

You sound more like a Firefox (Mozilla) fanboy, eh? Razz Come on, can't you take at least ONE criticism about them? I have many more where that came from, but I'm not interested in playing "annoy the fanboy" game. It's not like they're gods or anything. I admire and criticize their work. If they do good, I applaud them and advertise for them. If they do stupidity, I file bug reports and yell at them. Even for projects/things I do like, I still have plenty of criticism for those projects/things.

Back on topic - Fennec wasn't build specifically for x86, but so what? The only difference is the interface, that's all. If they have some random ARM ASM code in there, then yes, it's really for the mobile devices.

And alpha? Come on, I've seen MUCH better with Fennec ONE. And working from there, I certainly am not comforted that they just throw the code around and act like that's a good idea. Alpha from a solid product should be something that is like the first, but has more features and some GUI changes, NOT something that can't render nor run fast.

Oh, and sneaky bad word censoring bypass. Razz I'd think phpBB would discard empty tags, especially in words, but.... that's another story.
alberthrocks wrote:
They have a VERY strange way of doing things, which IMO is way too much for a simple application, nor an advanced one. Why would I toss Javascript in an application? It's the weirdest, niche kind of toolkit. (And yes, I know there's XPCom to actually play with C/C++.)

Oh, and a fun plus: You get to toss an XULRunner on it too!


FYI, more applications than you might think have scripting languages in them. It is very powerful for GUI work. Case in point: The whole goddamn internet. Clearly a markup language + a scripting language is an extremely powerful and flexible combination (which, oddly enough, is what a *lot* of GUI libraries are moving to).

Quote:
The point is this: XUL is not for serious application development, although Mozilla likes to think that way.


Again, do you have any actual *technical* reasons to back that up? Yet again, of course you don't.

Quote:
And wxWidgets is 1000x higher than you. Quite a few FOSS projects (and commercial ones too) use wxWidgets. Stop competing and start making your flagship web browser faster!


wxWidgets is awesome, but even the still relatively new WPF has far more apps using it - and guess what? WPF has a *lot* in common with XUL.

And actually wxWidgets has allowed you to create GUIs via XML for years and years now.

Quote:
wxMozilla IS replaced with wxWebKit, much to your dismay it seems.


No, it wasn't. Did the community move away from wxMozilla to wxWebKit? Maybe, I don't know, I haven't been following wxWidgets for a long time. Was wxMozilla replaced with wxWebKit? Not at all, as I already pointed out and as you admit.

Quote:
You sound more like a Firefox (Mozilla) fanboy, eh? Razz


No, actually, I'm just annoyed with idiots that rant simply because they've seen other people rant about similar things without actually understanding or comprehending the complaints.

Quote:
Back on topic - Fennec wasn't build specifically for x86, but so what? The only difference is the interface, that's all. If they have some random ARM ASM code in there, then yes, it's really for the mobile devices.


So it's not a tested platform. Bugs that exist for x86 builds will automatically have a lower priority than bugs for the supported platforms. Also, the interface is what will have the fewest differences, it is the actual engine code where differences will be found, which will have a *huge* impact.

Quote:
And alpha? Come on, I've seen MUCH better with Fennec ONE. And working from there, I certainly am not comforted that they just throw the code around and act like that's a good idea. Alpha from a solid product should be something that is like the first, but has more features and some GUI changes, NOT something that can't render nor run fast.


Someone clearly doesn't have any idea how software development actually works. Yet again, you are just highlighting that you don't know jack shit and just want to rant.
Again, fanboy-ish response. Again, I'll say this: "can't you take ONE criticism about Mozilla?" And I have plenty more criticisms where that came from, some which you probably can't even defend. If you tried, you'd look pretty foolish. Heck, you already made yourself look foolish! Razz (You'll find out as you continue reading.)

Let's begin the portioned replies:
Kllrnohj wrote:
FYI, more applications than you might think have scripting languages in them. It is very powerful for GUI work. Case in point: The whole goddamn internet. Clearly a markup language + a scripting language is an extremely powerful and flexible combination (which, oddly enough, is what a *lot* of GUI libraries are moving to).

Haha, very interesting. So I guess I should begin porting Audacity to HTML, JS, and CSS? Or how about Blender? Maybe TiLP* too! /sarcasm

The internet is an entirely different thing from application development. Sure, I can create an awesome pretty webpage with HTML/CSS/JS. But an application to look up databases, do image editing, etc.? NOT going to happen with HTML/JS/CSS. (...or at least without tons of suffering, pain, and slowness)

Glade and XRC are XML, and they're awesome. wxGlade uses XML for data storage. XML is even used in Apple's files (which is a bit too much, IMO). XML is certainly not bad at all.

But JS? No, not now, not ever. It's designed for web use, and it should stay that way. Unless there's a sudden rewrite for it, it belongs and should stay there. There are VERY FEW apps that I know of that uses XUL and/or Gecko. Why don't you name some, since you have such a kinship for Mozilla dev tools?


Kllrnohj wrote:
Again, do you have any actual *technical* reasons to back that up? Yet again, of course you don't.

I tested it out around the time when FF3.0 was released. Sadly, just from skimming the docs, it's still the same old sillyness. I can't remember all, but here were few:
- Insanely hard to set up things correctly
- Strangely abundant use of URLs to handle things
- C++, Javascript, and XUL are required = too much things to do to get an app working
- Extra build tools to build any app

Kllrnohj wrote:
wxWidgets is awesome, but even the still relatively new WPF has far more apps using it - and guess what? WPF has a *lot* in common with XUL.

And actually wxWidgets has allowed you to create GUIs via XML for years and years now.

Err, you're still not getting the point why XUL sucks. I don't hate XML - plenty of toolkits like GLADE, GUIBuilder (both GTK+ based), and as you mentioned, WPF, use XML. (Heck, TiLP uses .glade files for its GUI too!) But XUL is, unfortunately, stuck to itself. Javascript only, and if you want to move to C++, play with complex XPCOM. XML is certainly nice, and fun to use. But XUL's lack of a serious, productive interface is what makes it suck. How many apps have you seen use XUL, other than the addons, and the browsers? Very few, if not none at all. Why don't you list some XUL apps too?

Kllrnohj wrote:
No, it wasn't. Did the community move away from wxMozilla to wxWebKit? Maybe, I don't know, I haven't been following wxWidgets for a long time. Was wxMozilla replaced with wxWebKit? Not at all, as I already pointed out and as you admit.


You could say wxMozilla was superseded with wxWebConnect, but wxWebKit replaces it, although it doesn't say that on their SF page.

And wxWebConnect sucks, doesn't work, and is more or less abandoned.

Kllrnohj wrote:
No, actually, I'm just annoyed with idiots that rant simply because they've seen other people rant about similar things without actually understanding or comprehending the complaints.


You're funny. Wink You already made yourself look like an idiot. I've never seen anybody who wanted to code their app in HTML/JS/whatever. And I followed their dev for a long time, starting with 2.0. I faced and felt those complaints, and looked in to understand them too. How do I not know what I'm debating about? I just don't know if you know anything you're saying at all! Laughing

Kllrnohj wrote:
So it's not a tested platform. Bugs that exist for x86 builds will automatically have a lower priority than bugs for the supported platforms. Also, the interface is what will have the fewest differences, it is the actual engine code where differences will be found, which will have a *huge* impact.

Someone clearly doesn't have any idea how software development actually works. Yet again, you are just highlighting that you don't know jack shit and just want to rant.

What's the difference between Fennec on x86 and Fennec on ARM? Nothing, if at all anything. Maybe different toolkit, maybe different bindings here and there for specific platforms. But as far as I can see, the rendering engine is the same. Any type of hardware acceleration is OpenGL, maybe ES for mobiles. My boring GFX card can handle it. Unless I see the render code have ARM ASM, I'm not convinced that they're much different at all.

And again, I've seen Mozilla develop. The Firefox alphas certainly didn't look this bad. And I rant because this is debate. Wink

For the record, my only purpose for starting this topic is to get a debate started, and to see why people liked what they liked. I didn't start this to get a debate with a fanboy... Wink

*TiLP uses Glade, an GUI written in XML. Oh, and since you seem to be a web pro, mind showing me an advanced emulator written in pure HTML/CSS/JS? I have one in my head that is easily found. If you can't answer this, you really shouldn't be talking.
alberthrocks wrote:
Again, fanboy-ish response. Again, I'll say this: "can't you take ONE criticism about Mozilla?" And I have plenty more criticisms where that came from, some which you probably can't even defend. If you tried, you'd look pretty foolish. Heck, you already made yourself look foolish! Razz (You'll find out as you continue reading.)


I haven't defended valid criticisms against Mozilla, I've called you an idiot for baseless attacks.

Quote:
Haha, very interesting. So I guess I should begin porting Audacity to HTML, JS, and CSS? Or how about Blender? Maybe TiLP* too! /sarcasm

The internet is an entirely different thing from application development. Sure, I can create an awesome pretty webpage with HTML/CSS/JS. But an application to look up databases, do image editing, etc.? NOT going to happen with HTML/JS/CSS. (...or at least without tons of suffering, pain, and slowness)

Glade and XRC are XML, and they're awesome. wxGlade uses XML for data storage. XML is even used in Apple's files (which is a bit too much, IMO). XML is certainly not bad at all.

But JS? No, not now, not ever. It's designed for web use, and it should stay that way. Unless there's a sudden rewrite for it, it belongs and should stay there. There are VERY FEW apps that I know of that uses XUL and/or Gecko. Why don't you name some, since you have such a kinship for Mozilla dev tools?


Ah, so the problem is you don't understand what XUL is and isn't. XUL is for GUIs, it is not for the application code. You make pretty GUIs with XUL, that's it. The actual work behind the app is done in a different language.

Also, since when did I claim any kinship for Mozilla dev tools? Likewise, adoption rate is a retarded metric for anything. Java is used by a ton of programs - but it's still a horrible language. Or if you want another example, Win32 is quite possibly the worst graphics and platform API ever created - and yet it is also the most widely used API in the history of forever. Adoption != technical merit.

Quote:
I tested it out around the time when FF3.0 was released. Sadly, just from skimming the docs, it's still the same old sillyness. I can't remember all, but here were few:
- Insanely hard to set up things correctly
- Strangely abundant use of URLs to handle things
- C++, Javascript, and XUL are required = too much things to do to get an app working
- Extra build tools to build any app


This, again, points to you not having a clue what you're doing or what the purpose of XUL is. You also don't need to know C++ at all. If you want something more powerful than JavaScript, you can use something like PyXPCOM and use Python.

Quote:
Err, you're still not getting the point why XUL sucks. I don't hate XML - plenty of toolkits like GLADE, GUIBuilder (both GTK+ based), and as you mentioned, WPF, use XML. (Heck, TiLP uses .glade files for its GUI too!) But XUL is, unfortunately, stuck to itself. Javascript only, and if you want to move to C++, play with complex XPCOM. XML is certainly nice, and fun to use. But XUL's lack of a serious, productive interface is what makes it suck. How many apps have you seen use XUL, other than the addons, and the browsers? Very few, if not none at all. Why don't you list some XUL apps too?


That's because you haven't actually provided any reasons why XUL sucks. Now you are talking about its market share as if that mattered at all. Hint: It doesn't. It was also built to use with Mozilla's applications, which, in case you don't know, use XPCOM.

Also, do you have any actual technical complaints about Javascript? I'm guessing not, since everything being discussed is *waaaay* over your head already.

Quote:
And wxWebConnect sucks, doesn't work, and is more or less abandoned.


Uh no, not abandoned. The newest version is targeting the newest version of XULRunner and the newest stable version of wxWidgets. That really doesn't qualify as abandoned - not even remotely. That's pretty much the exact opposite of abandoned.

Quote:
You're funny. Wink You already made yourself look like an idiot. I've never seen anybody who wanted to code their app in HTML/JS/whatever. And I followed their dev for a long time, starting with 2.0. I faced and felt those complaints, and looked in to understand them too. How do I not know what I'm debating about? I just don't know if you know anything you're saying at all! 0x5


That's probably why I was hired by Google, because I'm an idiot. Good call.

Quote:
What's the difference between Fennec on x86 and Fennec on ARM? Nothing, if at all anything. Maybe different toolkit, maybe different bindings here and there for specific platforms. But as far as I can see, the rendering engine is the same. Any type of hardware acceleration is OpenGL, maybe ES for mobiles. My boring GFX card can handle it. Unless I see the render code have ARM ASM, I'm not convinced that they're much different at all.


There isn't a facepalm image big enough for this pile of fail.

Quote:
For the record, my only purpose for starting this topic is to get a debate started, and to see why people liked what they liked. I didn't start this to get a debate with a fanboy... Wink


Ah yes, when you've been called out on your complete lack of technical knowledge, just resort to calling the other guy a fanboy. Works every time.
I'm bored. Let's mix up the replies! Wink

Kllrnohj wrote:
That's probably why I was hired by Google, because I'm an idiot. Good call.

IIRC, you were hired to help write Android's web browser. From what I've heard from you, you make it sound like that you would write a web browser in HTML.

(Individual portions of the browser are in HTML, but most of it is generally C/C++, and the WebKit core is C++/ObjC.)

Now if you were writing web apps, that's another thing.

Kllrnohj wrote:
I haven't defended valid criticisms against Mozilla, I've called you an idiot for baseless attacks.

I'm not going to make 1000 videos or benchmarks or create some random PPT going through every single weakness, sillyness, slowness, etc. of Firefox or XUL. I don't have time for that kind of stuff; there's better things to do in the day besides that. I've provided enough info; go try some yourself if you want a taste of the aforementioned complaints.

Since you work at Google, you should know better to go and google the discussions, benchmarks, etc. of Firefox/XUL.

Kllrnohj wrote:
That's because you haven't actually provided any reasons why XUL sucks. Now you are talking about its market share as if that mattered at all. Hint: It doesn't. It was also built to use with Mozilla's applications, which, in case you don't know, use XPCOM.

Also, do you have any actual technical complaints about Javascript? I'm guessing not, since everything being discussed is *waaaay* over your head already.

Market share matters, silly. There's a reason why it's not widely adopted, and it's not because it's by Mozilla.

Javascript is not for designing local apps. That's all I have to say.
(And as a note: I'm great with Javascript. Love it, dig it with usage with web pages.)

Kllrnohj wrote:
Ah, so the problem is you don't understand what XUL is and isn't. XUL is for GUIs, it is not for the application code. You make pretty GUIs with XUL, that's it. The actual work behind the app is done in a different language.

Also, since when did I claim any kinship for Mozilla dev tools? Likewise, adoption rate is a retarded metric for anything. Java is used by a ton of programs - but it's still a horrible language. Or if you want another example, Win32 is quite possibly the worst graphics and platform API ever created - and yet it is also the most widely used API in the history of forever. Adoption != technical merit.

I do know XUL is the XML GUI design, like Glade, but when I said XUL, I was referring to the entire Mozilla framework in general. Sure, it's not the official way, but most of the world calls it XUL instead of something like MF.

And adoption doesn't always mean technical merit, but adoption does (most of the time) indicate efficiency and usability. Why do people use GTK+, QT, or wxWidgets instead of XUL? Probably because it's more efficient or usable in some way. I don't want to ever muck with XPCOM to get something simple done. If I ever mention XUL on any dev forum, they instantly say YUCK. Yeah, it's that infamous. (And Gecko in general is considered complex - KHTML/WebKit in comparison was considered much better in terms of understanding the code and developing for it.)

Kllrnohj wrote:
This, again, points to you not having a clue what you're doing or what the purpose of XUL is. You also don't need to know C++ at all. If you want something more powerful than JavaScript, you can use something like PyXPCOM and use Python.

Maybe, but you still need JS to bind things together, which is crazy IMO.

Kllrnohj wrote:
Uh no, not abandoned. The newest version is targeting the newest version of XULRunner and the newest stable version of wxWidgets. That really doesn't qualify as abandoned - not even remotely. That's pretty much the exact opposite of abandoned.

As far as I know, they only really care about their own commercial projects. Support is basically non-existent, even in the forums. Abandoned, maybe not. But lack of any update/support? Yup.

Kllrnohj wrote:
Ah yes, when you've been called out on your complete lack of technical knowledge, just resort to calling the other guy a fanboy. Works every time.

Wow, that's a nice retort. Razz I was calling you one due to your persistence to defending Mozilla without any significant, solid ideas to back it up. Lack of technical knowledge? I might not know every single programming language in the world, but I know enough about the topic in general to get a good idea of what I'm talking about. And again, I'm not the one tossing in empty [ b ] [ / b ] tags to curse. Wink

Kllrnohj wrote:
There isn't a facepalm image big enough for this pile of fail.

https://hg.mozilla.org/mobile-browser/file/ad4032be274b
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/517ccfdc4f5a

Tell me some code here that is directed at ARM. From what I can see, nothing much. Fennec 1 works nicely on my laptop, why not Fennec 2? It's not like this thing is drawing with the FB driver or attempting to use OpenGL software rendering on x86.

mobile-browser (Fennec) is pretty much all XUL and JS binding, so look at (mozilla-central) Gecko instead.
alberthrocks wrote:
Tell me some code here that is directed at ARM. From what I can see, nothing much. Fennec 1 works nicely on my laptop, why not Fennec 2?
I would naively assume that that's because Fennec 1 is stable software and Fennec 2 is alpha software. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying? Razz
KermMartian wrote:
alberthrocks wrote:
Tell me some code here that is directed at ARM. From what I can see, nothing much. Fennec 1 works nicely on my laptop, why not Fennec 2?
I would naively assume that that's because Fennec 1 is stable software and Fennec 2 is alpha software. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying? Razz


Maybe? Razz
I won't expect anything super stable, but I didn't expect the page to fail at rendering either. Smile
alberthrocks wrote:
From what I've heard from you, you make it sound like that you would write a web browser in HTML.


o.0

...what?

I literally am at a loss for words, I don't know how to respond to something so profoundly stupid.

What would have possibly given you the idea that I would write a web browser in HTML? (Ignoring the fact that such a feat is impossible, of course)

Quote:
I'm not going to make 1000 videos or benchmarks or create some random PPT going through every single weakness, sillyness, slowness, etc. of Firefox or XUL. I don't have time for that kind of stuff; there's better things to do in the day besides that. I've provided enough info; go try some yourself if you want a taste of the aforementioned complaints.


I didn't ask you to. I have repeatedly asked for *technical* reasons behind your complaints. You have repeatedly provided not a single one.

Quote:
Since you work at Google, you should know better to go and google the discussions, benchmarks, etc. of Firefox/XUL.


Really isn't my job to debate for you, now is it?

Quote:
Market share matters, silly. There's a reason why it's not widely adopted, and it's not because it's by Mozilla.


No, in this case it really doesn't. Mozilla primarily made XUL for Mozilla's apps. As far as that goes, it seems to be working pretty darn well for them.

Quote:
Javascript is not for designing local apps.


Says who? You? What argument do you have for that?

Quote:
I do know XUL is the XML GUI design, like Glade, but when I said XUL, I was referring to the entire Mozilla framework in general. Sure, it's not the official way, but most of the world calls it XUL instead of something like MF.


Glade has nothing to do with XML GUI design. Glade is a RAD tool. And I can't read your mind, I was going off of the silly assumption that you were saying what you meant. Seems that that isn't true, and you're just messing up all your terminology.

Quote:
And adoption doesn't always mean technical merit, but adoption does (most of the time) indicate efficiency and usability. Why do people use GTK+, QT, or wxWidgets instead of XUL? Probably because it's more efficient or usable in some way.


People use GTK+ because it's the defacto standard for Gnome. People use QT because it's the defacto standard for KDE, and now Symbian (in addition to being a darn good API that, oddly enough, has scripting support as well as CSS - notice a trend?). Not many people use wxWidgets at all.

Also, most projects don't need or have any use for something as powerful and flexible as a XUL style framework. XUL is massive overkill for many, many apps. Likewise, you may have noticed that most apps also don't ship with a database for persistent storage. Does that mean that those that do shouldn't be? No. Does that mean that DBs are stupid and should never be used for desktop apps? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

Quote:
If I ever mention XUL on any dev forum, they instantly say YUCK.


Well that seals it. If some random forum people say "YUCK" at something they've never used or learned anything about whatsoever, it must be horrible.

Quote:
Yeah, it's that infamous. (And Gecko in general is considered complex - KHTML/WebKit in comparison was considered much better in terms of understanding the code and developing for it.)


True, but KHTML/WebKit is also much simpler. Again, Firefox's spectacular extension supports comes from having it's UI built with XUL. You can't have both a simple engine and such amazing extension support. You get one or the other, not both.

Quote:
Wow, that's a nice retort. Razz I was calling you one due to your persistence to defending Mozilla without any significant, solid ideas to back it up. Lack of technical knowledge? I might not know every single programming language in the world, but I know enough about the topic in general to get a good idea of what I'm talking about.


No, I'm defending Mozilla from *your* persistence to flame them without any reasons.

And FYI, I haven't even said that XUL was good, so yeah, you're jumping straight to calling me a fanboy because you can't actually come up with any actual complaints about the technology.

Quote:
Fennec 1 works nicely on my laptop, why not Fennec 2 [alpha]?


No, wait, this needs the giant facepalm image.
Kllrnohj wrote:
o.0

...what?

I literally am at a loss for words, I don't know how to respond to something so profoundly stupid.

What would have possibly given you the idea that I would write a web browser in HTML? (Ignoring the fact that such a feat is impossible, of course)

Exaggeration. Overstatement. Sarcasm. Ever heard of them? Razz
If I wanted to be more precise, better words would be "you want to write most of the browser with just XML, JS and the corresponding framework."

Kllrnohj wrote:
I didn't ask you to. I have repeatedly asked for *technical* reasons behind your complaints. You have repeatedly provided not a single one.

Well, I can't do that if I don't know XUL/MF, can I? Razz
I've played with it a while ago, and I ditched it for wxWidgets. I certainly won't remember anything.

I can only provide general reasons; technical reasons? google them Smile

Kllrnohj wrote:
Really isn't my job to debate for you, now is it?

Nope.

Kllrnohj wrote:
No, in this case it really doesn't. Mozilla primarily made XUL for Mozilla's apps. As far as that goes, it seems to be working pretty darn well for them.

Of course. I just hate the sentiment in their heads that everyone else should too.

Kllrnohj wrote:
Says who? You? What argument do you have for that?

Of course me! And others too, if they share the same opinion.
No DB access, no direct screen drawing, no 3D, no precision math, yadda yadda yadda.

Kllrnohj wrote:
Glade has nothing to do with XML GUI design. Glade is a RAD tool. And I can't read your mind, I was going off of the silly assumption that you were saying what you meant. Seems that that isn't true, and you're just messing up all your terminology.

Glade still does GUI in XML, but does have connectors to functions:


Code:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<glade-interface>
  <!-- interface-requires gtk+ 2.16 -->
  <!-- interface-naming-policy project-wide -->
  <widget class="GtkWindow" id="window1">
    <child>
      <widget class="GtkHBox" id="hbox1">
        <property name="visible">True</property>
        <child>
          <widget class="GtkLabel" id="label1">
            <property name="visible">True</property>
            <property name="label" translatable="yes">Hello, world!</property>
            <signal name="button_press_event" handler="on_label1_button_press_event"/>
          </widget>
          <packing>
            <property name="position">0</property>
          </packing>
        </child>
      </widget>
    </child>
  </widget>
</glade-interface>


Looks like GUI to me.

Kllrnohj wrote:
People use GTK+ because it's the defacto standard for Gnome. People use QT because it's the defacto standard for KDE, and now Symbian (in addition to being a darn good API that, oddly enough, has scripting support as well as CSS). Not many people use wxWidgets at all.

So why did Firefox and Chrome use GTK+? Better yet, for Mozilla, why did they have a GTK+ portion of XUL? Because it's easy to develop with. (And Google might have wanted to avoid paying TrollTech any licensing fees)

Kllrnohj wrote:
Well that seals it. If some random forum people say "YUCK" at something they've never used or learned anything about whatsoever, it must be horrible.

It doesn't seal anything, despite your false conclusions. But since there's some respectable developers there, it's certainly nothing nice to hear either.

Quote:
True, but KHTML/WebKit is also much simpler. Again, Firefox's spectacular extension supports comes from having it's UI built with XUL. You can't have both a simple engine and such amazing extension support. You get one or the other, not both.

How about separating the engine from the GUI renderer? (Gecko HTML renderer from XUL, in this case)

Kllrnohj wrote:
No, I'm defending Mozilla from *your* persistence to flame them without any reasons.

And FYI, I haven't even said that XUL was good, so yeah, you're jumping straight to calling me a fanboy because you can't actually come up with any actual complaints about the technology.

Well, better start defending in http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=23, since there's a ton of noise there against Mozilla right now. I'm not the only one criticizing them.

Kllrnohj wrote:
No, wait, this needs the giant facepalm image.

You might win this case, although I still think they should do better. Razz
=====================
No more replies for tonight; I need to finish some HW and get a VM HDD expanded before I catch some zzzs tonight. Smile
when was this topic hijacked by killer and alberthro?
roflol
This is so much fun to read, it's like an Al Franken book had a love child with a technical manual...
Quote:
This is so much fun to read, it's like an Al Franken book had a love child with a technical manual...


haha very true very true! Laughing
qazz42 wrote:
when was this topic hijacked by killer and alberthro?

0rac343 wrote:
0x5

DShiznit wrote:
This is so much fun to read, it's like an Al Franken book had a love child with a technical manual...

0rac343 wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
This is so much fun to read, it's like an Al Franken book had a love child with a technical manual...

haha very true very true! Laughing


Not that I am helping, but these hardly seem like part of a debate on firefox 4 vs the world? Unless I am missing something, should we debate ont he non-debatingness?
CDI wrote:
qazz42 wrote:
when was this topic hijacked by killer and alberthro?

0rac343 wrote:
0x5

DShiznit wrote:
This is so much fun to read, it's like an Al Franken book had a love child with a technical manual...

0rac343 wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
This is so much fun to read, it's like an Al Franken book had a love child with a technical manual...

haha very true very true! 0x5


Not that I am helping, but these hardly seem like part of a debate on firefox 4 vs the world? Unless I am missing something, should we debate ont he non-debatingness?
Absolutely. Qazz, 0rac343, DShiznit, let's keep the off-topicness to a minimum.
KermMartian wrote:
One of my biggest complaints with Opera is that it's turning into the emacs of browsers. It wants to be everything: your FTP client, your IRC client, your browser, etc. I want my browser to just be my browser, with maybe a weather forecast and a custom skin at the most. I'll use a dedicated FTP client, IRC client, etc, thank you very much.


That was pretty annoying when I first used Opera; but you can disable support for anything you might be using an external application for. Opera's configuration is very flexible. It's just hard to figure out *how* something specific is done. The configuration never seemed very intuitive to me. It took me at least a year to really get comfortable enough to know what I was doing. (that is, with most any general configuration setting) Once you break it in, though, it's a great browser. Really, it's not Opera's basic feature set that I like, so much as its overall flexibility. I can make Opera do what I need Opera to do; and I can do it with more relative ease than I can with FF.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 5 of 6
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement