Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 8th Sep 2006 04:10 UTC
Benchmarks "Oh sure, the following tests aren't as scientific as putting all the browsers in a ring and seeing which one is left standing after the fight, but it's close." More here.
Thread beginning with comment 160516
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
eMagius
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think Firefox is based on XUL,

You think wrong. Firefox's ugliness and poor feel, as well as its laggard speed, can be largely attributed to XUL. Compare to K-Meleon or other native Gecko-based browsers to see the difference.

XUL needs to be taken out back and shot.

Reply Parent Score: 5

MechaShiva Member since:
2005-07-06

XUL vs. native toolkit has nothing to do with look and layout of the browser. All XUL is is an abstraction layer for the native toolkit. I'm right there with you if you want to talk about GUI responsiveness (which is something firefox could do well to improve on). Apps that use the native toolkit directly are going to be faster than ones that use an abstraction layer. But if you want to say that firefox is ugly because it's run through XUL is just not accurate.

Reply Parent Score: 1

thecwin Member since:
2006-01-04

Though abstracting several toolkits means that certain generalisations must be made, and inconsistencies will occur when compared to a native UI.

For instance, if Win32 supported something GTK didn't (or the other way round), support would need to be hacked in, and this might look somewhat ugly or not match themes or something. The same occurs with Swing and SWT on Java, or wxwindows.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Damn, thought it already had gone native, what was the point of rewriting mozilla then?

Reply Parent Score: 1