Gearing up for Firefox 3

This is a discussion on Gearing up for Firefox 3 within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by Mario F. Depends on what you mean. For me or you? For the developers of the page, ...

  1. #16
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Depends on what you mean. For me or you?
    For the developers of the page, for example?

    They just need to adhere to the standards which have been unchanged for so many years. I can only tag as total irresponsibility the fact a browser still comes out these days without FULL standards compliance.
    But there's so much more on today's web than standards...
    Displaying images, for example, supporting proper fonts, and so on.
    And the standards themselves, as many as they are, are big and complex and difficult to implement.
    No browser today has 100% standards compliance.
    It doesn't really matter that much, though, as long as the developers strive hard to achieve it.

    But then there's the question of speed and memory usage - things important to many people. A browser shouldn't eat too much memory (*cough* IE7 *cough*) or be too slow (*cough* IE7 *cough*).
    And I think the devs at Mozilla has done a great job with FF3.
    I hope they keep it up!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  2. #17
    Internet Superhero
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    934
    A browser shouldn't eat too much memory (*cough* IE7 *cough*) or be too slow (*cough* IE7 *cough*).
    Haven't used IE very often since Firefox 1.0 came out, so i don't know how much memory it uses, but i find FF to be very consuming. Atm, it's just sitting here, with 2 pages open, using 110 mb, and i have 1 addon, i think that is a bit too much?
    How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.

  3. #18
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post
    Haven't used IE very often since Firefox 1.0 came out, so i don't know how much memory it uses, but i find FF to be very consuming. Atm, it's just sitting here, with 2 pages open, using 110 mb, and i have 1 addon, i think that is a bit too much?
    IE7 uses about 7x as much memory
    FF3 fixes the memory allocation a bit, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    >> Tabs are nice sugar coating but you could as well just open new windows instead of tabs.
    No, you couldn't. Web browsing was made wonderful with the invention of tabs.

  5. #20
    and the Hat of Clumsiness GanglyLamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    between photons and phonons
    Posts
    1,109
    But there's so much more on today's web than standards...
    Displaying images, for example, supporting proper fonts, and so on.
    And the standards themselves, as many as they are, are big and complex and difficult to implement.
    No browser today has 100% standards compliance.
    It doesn't really matter that much, though, as long as the developers strive hard to achieve it.
    That must be the most ridiculous pov on webstandards ive heard so far.

    Imagine you are writing c code, but you are using all kind of funky spicy bits of code so that your code only compiles on machine A with Operating system B and preferable with some funky extra libraries needed to compile...

    If browsers would comply with the standards then webdevelopment would be tremendously easier. Ask yourself this question, if even the person who implements the browser does not have sufficient knowledge of the standards, then how in earth is someone as a webdeveloper supposed to know everything...
    With this im just stating that if webdevelopers even know the standards, and on top of that know all the quirks that happen with the different browsers (in order to create a website that is rendered correctly on every browser)... then either A: browserdevelopers are either blind or not competent enough
    B: browserdevelopers like to create their own mash up of non standard things which ultimately could be turned into a standard after a long period of evaluation etc ... (Because thats exactly what it is right now, if im writing html and css I know exactly how my page should be rendered according to the standards while writing, but then again when hitting f5 there might always be another non conforming item of a webbrowser that lets me write new rules etc just for this one browser only.)

    Im guessing they are going for option B. Nothing wrong with that since that way you keep improving the web and leave room for new improved standards and possibilities. But how hard can it be to have some kind of tag that determines that the enclosed html is a non-standard waiting for standardisation. Of course browserdevelopers should then have the sense of agreeing how this tag should look like so that it is the same for every browser.

    This way you would create the opportunity to continue improving the way the web is experienced, without bothering the end users and most of all the webdevelopers.

  6. #21
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    >> Tabs are nice sugar coating but you could as well just open new windows instead of tabs.
    No, you couldn't. Web browsing was made wonderful with the invention of tabs.
    Tabs are a must have for me, I usualyl have up to 10 pages open at once. I hated the old days when I had to have 10 copies f IE open at once.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  7. #22
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,170
    Yeah, you go write a web browser and see how enthusiastic you are later
    Perhaps we should compare the web standards to C++ standards. Yes, go write a compiler. Think you can create a perfectly standards compatible compiler?
    I'd love to see you try.

    Today's web is huge with lots of standards, lots of code, lots of complexities. It isn't black and white and it certainly isn't easy.
    And a browser is more than just standards.
    You wouldn't use a compiler if it's unfriendly, would you? It doesn't matter if it 100% standards compliant or not.

    Give them some slack. Put the blame on Microsoft and their Internet Explorer crap. It was Microsoft who broke the standards in the first place and put the web in this whole mess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  8. #23
    and the Hat of Clumsiness GanglyLamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    between photons and phonons
    Posts
    1,109
    Im not trying to point fingers, but using an excuse like the standards are complex is just ridiculous. Most of the browser conform to most standards, but sometimes the interpretation of the standards is just plain wrong (referring for instance to the box problem).

    Im also not in the league of writing a compiler or a webbrowser, if I would be able I would happily contribute to a more standardised webbrowser.

    Anyhow, I understand your pov, now you know mine I suggest we just leave it at that.

  9. #24
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,170
    I agree. Let's focus our wrath on Microsoft instead
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  10. #25
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    The fact that makes me respect Firefox is that it is a "developed by the community for the community" project, which means it's a widely spread open-source project. Noone can steal that respect from them. They don't do anything for marketing reasons. For them it isn't the idiots who say "nonono, that's not good for marketing" (Dilbert cartoons ftw) who say what is going to be in the project and what must be left out. Everything is decided by the developers using the suggestions, hints and direct pieces of code from ordinary people.

    Therefore, Firefox is not just a web browser, it's THE web browser. (Although I have to admit Opera isn't bad either.)
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  11. #26
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,383
    Opera is indeed better
    Only reason I don't use it much is... drums... less plugins.
    Firefox web developer toolbar and Firebug are a must have for me.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #27
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,159
    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    They don't do anything for marketing reasons.
    What'cha say? They are signing up "download pledges!" If that's not marketing I don't know what the heck is.

  13. #28
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,525
    Frankly I find this whole comparison to be ridiculous since Elysia doesn't benchmark anything ever, and we don't know anything about the system he uses other than he has 2Gb of RAM.

    My personal experience is totally different, but then my system is really middle-end if not low-end now:

    Intel Pentium IV 2.6 GHz
    504 MB RAM
    Full specs listed here

    I guess everyone just has different needs and different browsers are important, which makes standards important. People deserve to see the same or incredibly similar pages.

    I really think IE7 just works best with my computer being the way it is and I haven't been very happy with other browsers' behavior. Opera may be faster than Firefox, but not for me. I frequently had issues with it freezing if I refreshed a couple tabs. I was really upset about that because I wanted Opera to work really well. And you read all the propaganda about how well a third party browser works for groups of people, only to realize later that you're a sheeple for the commercial world.

    My problem with Firefox too is that it wouldn't behave and that's a pain because I used to test web pages and scripts I wrote for people. I needed the testing environment. My problem with Firefox is that it attempted to take over my computer, messing with stuff like file associations. That I didn't much appreciate, though there are things to like about it. It also didn't work with FTP for some reason, back when I had it.

    If anyone has any recommendations for me they are welcome to make them. Anyway, I keep my favorites exported now. And my own IE interface isn't so bad, but maybe I'm a minimalist. I use everything on there.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  14. #29
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,383
    Quote Originally Posted by citizen
    If anyone has any recommendations for me they are welcome to make them.
    Well, your specs are very similar to my late laptop with the only meaningful exception being my processor was a PIII 1Ghz. I had similar problems with IE7 and Opera being the only ones behaving minimally as far as resources are concerned. FF2 performance degrades quickly for no reason I could ever tell. Still it was my main browser and to that effect I would run it with just the absolute bare essentials, no cache and no history. It would still take me around 1 minute to load.

    I didn't have your troubles with Opera though. And IE7 was blazing fast simply because I had nothing on it. I just use(d) it to test my work.

    Safari is absolutely terrible. Both on Mac and Windows. On windows because it darn slow on machines with these specs. On Mac and windows because the engine fails to properly respect control inherent sizes, a feature I use often. As an example... the following simple page fails to render properly on Safari... it renders correctly on every other browser even on the infamous IE6; http://clientes.quiettech.co.uk. Note the code is already a mesh in an attempt to have the bloody thing show in Safari as it should.

    I tried other alternatives. Most notably Kameleon. Problem is that it uses the Gecko engine and I fear many of the problems associated with FF resources degradation spur from the engine. This because Kameleon, while much lighter than FF, also starts to degrade after a while. It is still the best option if you just want to test out your wok against the Gecko engine.

    Netscape... well, it too uses the Gecko engine. Never felt the need for this browser. I felt it is slightly less heavy than FF2. But I can't really tell with precision because I just used it a few times out of curiosity.

    I think the real problem here is those 512Mb we both used to share. Despite what the minimum specs say, fact is the concept of a minimum spec is so broaden today that it means different tings to different people. For those sittng on 512Mb Ram it means you should double what you read on the minimum specs.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  15. #30
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,170
    Quote Originally Posted by citizen View Post
    Frankly I find this whole comparison to be ridiculous since Elysia doesn't benchmark anything ever, and we don't know anything about the system he uses other than he has 2Gb of RAM.
    I'll give you something: Athlon 64 X2 3800+. That's the CPU.
    And the fact is that I'm only repeating what is available on the web.
    Proof? Here you go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Well, your specs are very similar to my late laptop with the only meaningful exception being my processor was a PIII 1Ghz. I had similar problems with IE7 and Opera being the only ones behaving minimally as far as resources are concerned. FF2 performance degrades quickly for no reason I could ever tell. Still it was my main browser and to that effect I would run it with just the absolute bare essentials, no cache and no history. It would still take me around 1 minute to load.
    People! We must stop comparing FF2. It's old, it's buggy and FF3 is loads better, now that it's due out.
    FF2 does not compare to the newest versions and has no place in today's browser market.

    I didn't have your troubles with Opera though. And IE7 was blazing fast simply because I had nothing on it. I just use(d) it to test my work.
    Funny, because all benchmarks I've seen states that IE7 is blazingly slow. And memory hungry and degrades performance terribly.

    Safari is absolutely terrible. Both on Mac and Windows. On windows because it darn slow on machines with these specs. On Mac and windows because the engine fails to properly respect control inherent sizes, a feature I use often. As an example... the following simple page fails to render properly on Safari... it renders correctly on every other browser even on the infamous IE6; http://clientes.quiettech.co.uk. Note the code is already a mesh in an attempt to have the bloody thing show in Safari as it should.
    And that seems weird, as well, because Safari and FF3 are in the lead with speed. Are you trying old versions, because these results doesn't seem to coincide with benchmarks at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21