Why browsers are bloated

https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/blob/master/Source/WebCore/platform/Scrollbar.cpp
https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/blob/master/Source/WebCore/platform/win/ScrollbarThemeWin.cpp
Let's reinvent the fucking scrollbar, which every goddamn platform with a UI already has, and make it behave subtly different from the native one!

Right-click a native scrollbar in some other app:
- Scroll Here
- Top
- Bottom
- Page Up
- Page Down
- Scroll Up
- Scroll Down

Right-click a scrollbar in Chrome:
- Back
- Forward
- Reload
- Save As...
...

Right-click a scrollbar in Firefox and Opera:
Absolutely fucking nothing happens!

What the fuck!? How did these terminally retarded idiots get involved in creating one of the most important pieces of software to the average user?

>>879,880
Samefag

>>878
Someone had to write the browser you use to shitpost. Hardly conjuring spirits, as this thread has shown. If that isn't programming though, what is it?

>>882
It counjures the spirits that fetch information from an international network and display them on a monitor. Turning a dead stone into a scrying window that can show anything on Earth is a feat Mediaeval magicians could only dream of.

>>882
It's hardly complicated to send a post request to a server.

>>880
Looking at CSS tokeniser+parser. I've set aside box generation and rendering for now since there's no use in doing that without having a way of actually consuming CSS.

There's an odd '||' operator which I can't find anywhere else in the spec:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30702971/how-is-the-operator-used-in-css

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Apr/0059.html

So it's completely fucking useless unless you're a circlejerking academic steeped in that LL/LR/etc. bullshit, and I've carefully read every single word of the CSS3 selectors spec without finding a single mention of it. It only has ~=, |=, ^=, $=, and *=. THANK YOU W3C FOR MAKING STUPID IMPLEMENTATIONS MORE INEFFICIENT! :facepalm:

>>881
autist

>>885
No one cares unless you're posting code

check 'em

>>887
and then we laugh

Hi! I'm new to progride.org. So this Cudder is the local uber-haxor assclown?

>>887
Here you go, a part of the CSS tokeniser.

mov eax, [esi]
cmp eax 2d2d213ch
jz emit_cdo
cmp ax, word 2d2dh
jnz not_cdc
cmp [esi+2], byte 3eh
jz emit_cdc
not_cdc:
cmp ax, 2a2fh
jz do_comment
cmp ah, 3dh
jnz not_matchop
cmp al, 24h
jz matchop
...
not_matchop:

>>891
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrematureOptimization

>>890
*Cudder is all talk and no action*

>>891

[esi]

LOLOLOL wtf is this 32-bit shit? GTFO

>>891
What a ridiculous sample. Truly Cudder is all talk and no action.

>>895
Can't have too many registers! That makes amd64 bloated or something!

>>894
>he fell 4 the b8

>>899
Nice dubs

>>898
Thanks

Checkem

>>901
Thanks

Checkem

>>900
Nice dubs

>>898-901
ARE YOU OK?

>>902
Negro, ¿tú eres sueco?

Why is firefucks so bloated? Recently they removed the tab groups however they added the "web developer" tools including a "WebIDE" even though firebug exists for a long time.
Remember the mozilla suite? Wasn't the reason they dropped it due to the bloat? In that case, why did they do the same with firefox?
What do I need firefox hello and firefox pocket for?

>>892
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DesignForPerformance

I already got bitten by a stupid design decision in >>133. Also consider that other browsers already have a lot of (complex) optimisations because of how old they are, so if I want to compete I can't not optimise. These optimisations I'm doing actually simplify the code, so there's another benefit -- I take less time writing it and reading it in the future.

>>894,896
You don't need 64 bits if most of them are going to be zero. 64-bit pointers with around half their bits 0 make me want to facepalm every time I see them. Besides, amd64 is a fucking mess of RISC-ism and 8 registers is enough for a lot of things if you use them well. Compilers are just retardedly stupid at register allocation. (Just look at the dismal performance of MIPS with 32 registers... More is not better, except in synthetic microbenchmarks.)

What do I need firefox hello and firefox pocket for?

You don't, Mozilla does. You are the product.

>>905
YOUR C2 MEME IS THE MOST EPICESTEST WIN XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

would everyone please stop taking the Cudder bait

>>905
32-bit is not going to last forever. I would be suprised if the next version of Windows even targets it, and a few versions after that, it won't even be supported any more.

>>908
Linux already stopped supporting i368.

>>909
They never even started.

>>910
Check 'em

Jews did >>911

>>908
You probably interact with 4-bit CPUs daily and don't know about it. Same for 8 and 16-bit.

32-bit binaries run fine on 64-bit Windows. No need to bloat things up if you don't have a requirement to use huge amounts of memory.

>>913
Isn't one major point of """avoiding bloat""" to run faster? 32-bit shit is slower in tons of <4GB cases due to limited number of registers.

>>914
Only if you have a stupid compiler and/or programmer.

Microbenchmarks that are heavy on 64-bit arithmetics will obviously look better in 64-bit mode, but that's very unrepresentative of real code, particularly code that a browser might execute (lots of branches and 32-bit maths, plus memory addressing, all of which don't benefit at all from 64-bit mode and may be even worse because of the lower code density.)

http://www.digitalcitizen.life/google-chrome-64-bit-it-better-32-bit-version
(Ignore the marketing blurb, 32-bit is as fast if not faster and the one thing they didn't show is memory usage --> around 50% more for 64-bit.)

Also, the 64-bit extension being poorly done, means even if there were things that would be better 64 bits at a time, there's no equivalent instruction to express what could be done in 32-bit mode. Where's the "cmp r64, imm64" for example? There's only "cmp r64, r/m64". Either you waste another register to hold the immediate and an instruction to put it there, or suck up an extra memory access. Bastards.

You don't want to release the code until it passes acid2, but what about a binary release? I'm really excited about your efficient browser, but you aren't giving us anything for now and I'm afraid it'll take a lot of time until you can get it to pass acid2 (or am I wrong?).

>>916
There will be a binary release.

Another little CSS syntax stupidity: guess where "UNICODE-RANGE" token is actually used. Then look at all the problems with it:

http://www-style.w3.narkive.com/MnRnzeaj/selector-parsing-it-s-easy-to-hit-unexpected-unicode-range-tokens

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Nov/0123.html

...defining a whole new token, complete with conflicts, for what amounts to a single property value in an at-rule for embedded fonts? DO NOT WANT.

All words and action none!

>>917
A binary release before the code release?
The code release is when it passes acid2.
When's the binary release?

Could you show us how much of your browser is C and how much is Assembly?
cat *.s | wc -l && cat *.c *.h | wc -l