Python in Firefox

Sort-of, it's more that the new QUANTUM-based browser isn't compatible with some older add-ons, but many of the most beloved are already ported over.
The real shame is that they are getting rid of the Pageshot function next month. It was such a unique and useful feature.
Now I just use Waterfox since it's just pre-QUANTUM Firefox but with security updates.

Defend your position.

How about these useless fucks fix their broken piece of shit software before they add twenty new useless features?

You could possibly be useful and make an extension that runs youtube-dl in the browser?

I thought that they were only removing the upload part of the screen shot tool?

SJWzilla/Firefag doesn't want you alt-reich far-right national socialist extremist frogs to archive anything. It's a shame that there isn't any good browser anymore. All browsers are either botnet or you are forced to use links/lynx. Terry was right. Networking was a mistake. Ring-0-only, no networking and 640x480 VGA and 16 colours is the way out of suffering.

Attached: say-hello-to-mister-god.webm (1120x720, 964.11K)

Are you retarded?
pageshot.net/

...

Why do I need to defend it?
There are forms which can send stuff to the server and the reloading afterwards makes sense because otherwise you can't see your own post.
It's very simple and way faster than any Javascript form of doing this.

All of the double post issues that occur, are also because of JS fuck ups.
And have I already mentioned the memory leaks in all browsers related to Javascript?

there is no double post issue. its just retards spamming their shitty thread that no one cares about so they post it again until someone posts a reply to him

That's the old logo they used before Firefox.

Attached: mozilla.png (400x300, 75.17K)

This isn't the same at all.

Thats kinda cool I guess. I'll take a look at it some time.

You could probably write a more efficient Disassembler in excel vb than in python.

...

if my layout doesn't work in lynx it doesn't get implemented.

JK i prefer elinks.

Of course Mozilla didn't add Python as a supported scripting language to Firefox, nor did they create an interface to allow separate scripting languages. That would make too much sense. Instead, there's some bullshit about needing a 21 MB interpreter and a "bunch of JavaScript" and a fake filesystem.

There's no reason a browser couldn't support different scripting languages and combine JavaScript, Python, Lisp, Perl, Ruby, Lua, and so on into one page and share the GC and variables as much as possible. That's how it would work on a Lisp machine.

The UNIX way forces every program to handle everything. The browser has to have the capabilities of an OS and handle everything itself because UNIX sucks. Some browsers even have their own video codecs instead of automatically supporting whatever is installed on the OS. Going further, there's WebUSB and having to write a garbage collector to run in a browser that already has a garbage collector. WebUSB sucks because web apps become dependent on the entire USB spec as well as tens of millions of lines for a browser. Now instead of drivers that provide an abstract interface for different kinds of physical hardware based on their purpose (like printers), hardware companies will be forced to be compatible on the hardware level because UNIX weenies used their interface directly. It's like SoundBlaster compatibility on DOS all over again, but worse. It goes against the whole purpose of having drivers.

This is the same anti-modular bullshit over and over again. This anti-modularity goes to the very core of UNIX with C, fork, and pretending that all devices are either typewriters or tape drives. If these web browsers were developed on any OS other than UNIX, scripting would be modular. Look at all the languages supported by Internet Explorer automatically via WSH. Why do these bloated browsers with 100 MB libraries have a worse design than 90s Internet Explorer (or 80s Lisp machines or 60s Multics)?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Script_Host

Once one strips away the cryptology, the issue is control.UNIX is an operating system that offers the promise ofultimate user control (ie: no OS engineer's going to take away from ME!), which was a good thing in itsinfancy, less good now, where the idiom has caused hugeredundancies between software packages. How many B*Treepackages do we NEED? I think that I learned factoring inhigh school; and that certain file idioms are agreed to inthe industry as Good Ideas. So why not support certaincommon denominators in the OS?Just because you CAN do something in user programs does notmean it's a terribly good idea to enforce it as policy. Ifsociety ran the same way UNIX does, everyone who owned a carwould be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels ofcrude...

Browsers implement certain video codecs because they don't want to assume that the native OS is supporting those codecs by default.

Talk about pathetic. UNIX philosophy is "do one job and do it well", not "do everything". That's why you do shit like pipe data through hundred different programs before you get an output.

heh

what someone says is totally meaningless compared to what they actually do.
Otherwise we are seriously in Unix has never been tried territory.

Actual implementations of Unix already do implement the philosophy that says "Make each program do one thing well."

hmmm

yes

You don't believe OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD and OpenSolaris are an implementation of Unix?

No

Do any of them look like this?
add2(a,b);add3(a,b,c);add4(a,b,c,d);add5(a,b,c,d,e);add6(a,b,c,d,e,f);add7(a,b,c,d,e,f,g);
Instead of this.
add(argc, argv[]);

because I'm going to have laugh at their philosophies otherwise.

This please.

Couldn't you have python scripts to do whatever you want on a host pc that doesn't have noscript?
Python can create bash and batch scripts to create a new user and to open a port. This just seems like a bad idea.