logoalt Hacker News

charcircuittoday at 9:13 AM4 repliesview on HN

>long term browser compatibility

Making a new browser engine hurts browser compatibility more than it helps it. It now becomes one more target that needs to be tested against, limitations need to be kept tracked of, etc. The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. In regards to the standard we can use LLMs to cross reference the spec, with tests, and with the implementation to make sure all match.


Replies

teekerttoday at 9:19 AM

Ah, you must be too young to have experienced early Internet Explorer, which attempted just this.

show 1 reply
latexrtoday at 9:31 AM

> The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink.

That’s what makes Google more dominant, and if you think that’s a good idea you should really put down your LLM and go read up on a bit of history. Do you want to live in a world where a single company controls your access to the web? Are you eager to navigate through ad pages with a little bit of web? To have even more of your data mined?

Browser diversity may be a bit annoying for developers, but it is good for users, and developers are users too. When there’s a lack of diversity, everyone but the dominant player is squeezed.

show 1 reply
embedding-shapetoday at 9:39 AM

> The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink.

Lol, for Blink perhaps, what about the rest of the ecosystem, the web and the users, like the ones who don't even use Blink?

Very idealistic point-of-view with no basis in reality, sadly, because wouldn't it be nice if we could care about just one engine?

Oxodaotoday at 9:23 AM

yeah in a perfect world google dictates how the standard will evolve, we kill all competition so we're sure that you have only one target to build your software against, I'm sure a monopoly will greatly improves innovation and not be used to stiffen competition. /s

show 1 reply