I know this sounds bad, but maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Necessity is the mother of invention and maybe browser technology should be funded by governments instead of privately owned advertising megacorps?
I know this sounds bad, but maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Necessity is the mother of invention and maybe browser technology should be funded by governments instead of privately owned advertising megacorps?
Nobody can make a successful browser that is simpler. The moment a user hits a website that no longer works, they are going back to their old browser.
All these new features exist because websites replaced every single program most people used. Web browser now have to be capable of doing anything pretty well. It’s not some grand conspiracy to take over the internet, it’s providing the features devs want so they can deliver the things they want in the modern multiplatform no-install world.
Of course developers wanted this. They wanted to push all the complexity into the browser so they didn’t have to worry about it themselves. Google was happy to provide this because it meant that they could be the only ones that could write a browser. That was the “conspiracy” you’re talking about - but it wasn’t a conspiracy, it was more of a strategy on behalf of Google, who knew that they were the only ones that could provide this level of support, and so if they did it, nobody else would be able to compete with them. Even Microsoft gave up on their own engine.
But the only reason Google could do this is because they were deriving revenue from their advertising monopoly. If their web browser was honestly funded, many, many of the features that we see in Chrome today would have never existed.
Word. That, and so many other things.
Also, I’m not going to argue that things aren’t better for developers today than they were before. Sure, web development is much easier these days. But at the same time, I think web applications are way too overengineered. There are lots of things that could be done in simpler ways - for example, why is it necessary to restyle scrollbars, or reimplement standard components like drop-down menus with reimplementations written entirely in Javascript? Things like this are just stupid and having to drop support for trivial things like this in the name of making browsers simpler is well worth it in my opinion.
Dropping support for that stuff means breaking 95% of the websites people currently use. It’s a non-starter, it cannot ever happen, even if you think it would be for the best.
I remember a lot of similar arguments about how ubiquitous Flash was when mobile devices were first taking off. Not saying it will be easy or even likely not saying it will never happen is a bit of an assumption.
It’s a different situation, as a dev I’d happily bet my life on this assumption.
Just compile everything to webassembly and ship that,using your preferred language and libraries.
Which means that we will get blobs to interact with, instead of JavaScript code that can be “reviewed” or monkey patched away.
Fun times. Thanks, monopolistic assholes like Goggle, Microsoft and Apple.
Don’t give them ideas!
Which means that simple cross-platform scripting languages with graphical abilities should have been more popularized.
I discovered tcl/tk for myself recently and it’s just wonderful. A 12 years old me would be capable to learn it, if I knew about it.
What the web browser does well is a sandbox to protect you from all the tits and dicks and “pay us 42 bitcoins” messages. People are afraid of running programs from random sources, but not of visiting random webpages.
So the products they need are a simplified web browser and a sandboxed environment for running things downloaded from it. What we have. Just separated, cause the former is too important to be affected by customer requirements of the latter.