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
Python in Firefox
Ryder Hill
Logan Robinson
That's the old logo they used before Firefox.
Jayden Thomas
This isn't the same at all.
Michael Lopez
Thats kinda cool I guess. I'll take a look at it some time.
Liam Williams
You could probably write a more efficient Disassembler in excel vb than in python.
Matthew Martinez
...
Juan Jones
if my layout doesn't work in lynx it doesn't get implemented.
JK i prefer elinks.
Isaac Jackson
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
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...
Angel Cook
Browsers implement certain video codecs because they don't want to assume that the native OS is supporting those codecs by default.
Lucas Adams
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.