Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Sep 2008 11:15 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones With the recent surge in WebKit adoption, many have stated to question the usefulness of Mozilla's Gecko browsing engine, claiming that WebKit is far superior. Some even go as far as saying that Firefox should ditch Gecko in favour of WebKit. Ars Technica's Ryan Paul explains why that is utter, utter bogus. "From a technical perspective, Gecko is now very solid and no longer lags behind WebKit. A testament to the rate at which Gecko has been improving is its newfound viability in the mobile space, where it was practically considered a nonstarter not too long ago. Mozilla clearly has the resources, developer expertise, and community support to take Gecko anywhere that WebKit can go."
Thread beginning with comment 329767
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Epiphany?
by sbergman27 on Tue 9th Sep 2008 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Epiphany?"
Member since:

I'm curious; where have they admitted this?

Please RTFA. There is a clearly marked link to the Scott Collins quote on the first page.

And, there are actually many, many XUL applications in use as we speak.

What color is the sky on your planet? Because here it is blue, and XUL apps are rarely seen in actual use. Provide a list of these "many many apps" along with estimated user bases. And yes, I do note the importance of actual users here. For example, Chatzilla still exists. But how many people actually use it?

I would like to thank you, however, for posting your views on the matter, rather than engaging in the more common practice of just doing a "drive-by modding" of any post critical of Mozilla/Firefox/Gecko. Unlike that strategy, yours shows that you have genuine confidence in them.

Edited 2008-09-09 15:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Epiphany?
by rycamor on Tue 9th Sep 2008 16:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Epiphany?"
rycamor Member since:

Please RTFA. There is a clearly marked link to the Scott Collins quote on the first page.

Yes, I found that right after I posted, but I figured I would wait for the inevitable F-ing. If you will notice, he does not say that XUL and XPCOM were overused, but simply that XPCOM was used too much in low-level components where it really wasn't needed. I still consider that significantly different from how you painted it.

I certainly have no motivation to provide the list you demand of users and applications (especially because you chose to ignore the many Firefox extensions that are quite roaringly popular). As I said, many of them are internal corporate applications, which I read about by participating in various Mozilla-related mailing lists. No, I can't quantify but neither can you.

I agree it is nowhere near as popular as C# or Visual Basic, but it is no technological "dead end". It has worked fine for me in a corporate app of middling popularity, used by a handful of large companies and about 50 smaller ones. And since Gecko/XUL shows no signs of going away, I am not anxious for its future. It is a nice niche that no other application framework has handled properly. Yes, there were some major warts in early implementations, but it is getting to be a great lightweight technology for distributed client apps. Why tear it down?

Reply Parent Score: 3