
Mozilla borrows from WebKit to build fast new JS engine - alexandros
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/mozilla-borrows-from-webkit-to-build-fast-new-js-engine.ars
======
tcc619
Stories like this makes me appreciate open source. Combine the best components
for everyone's benefit.

------
nopassrecover
Wish they could borrow ICC V4 colour rendering at the same time. It would be
nice to have Firefox looking normal again.

~~~
MikeCapone
I don't know anything about ICC V4, but you've made me curious. Could you
elaborate on what this does and what the problem is?

~~~
eagleal
I didn't know what International Color Consortium (ICC) was, but Wikipedia has
a lot[1] (browse till you have enough).

Apparently Firefox (as of Gecko/20100115 - FF 3.6) supports only the version 2
of their specification[2]. Adobe Reader supports the latest (4, don't know
4.2).[2]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_profile>

[2] <http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter>

~~~
nopassrecover
I'm not a colour expert but as I understand it ICC profiles allow you to
configure the colours your monitor renders to match their intended colour. I
know that I need to use one of these profiles in order to get my VA panel
monitor (which tends to use over-vibrant colours) to render "normal" colours.
I'm not entirely sure why Windows cannot override application rendering etc.
but I do know that applications that do their own rendering need reference to
this profile.

Prior to Firefox 3.5 this was all supported without issue. As of 3.5 Firefox
revoked support for ICC v4 (offering only ICC v2 support). As a result all
colours look darker and I can rarely see gradients etc. now which is
problematic as I prefer to use FF + Firebug for web development.

------
CoryMathews
I still wonder why Firefox even bothers with writing its own engines instead
of using webkit and v8. There really is no need for 2 open source rendering
engines, that do the exact same thing.

It would save a lot of compatibility issues for websites and web developers,
as well as push standards further if they both ran the same engines
underneath.

So essentially Firefox would kept its same UI and add-ons system and thus
would still keep its users. Which browser users used would basically come down
to their preference in the way the browser feels as speed/standards/etc would
no longer matter since they would be roughly the same (FF/Chrome/Safari)

~~~
icey
It seems that Mozilla has a bit of NIH syndrome.

(Edit for the downvote parade - people have been talking about NIH at Mozilla
for years:

<http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4144>

[http://diary.braniecki.net/2008/01/27/not-invented-here-
synd...](http://diary.braniecki.net/2008/01/27/not-invented-here-syndrome-in-
mozilla/)

[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-9595-0.html?forumID=1&thr...](http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-9595-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=38858&messageID=712838)
)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Are you perhaps being downvoted for claiming NIH syndrome in response to a
post which is about them taking code from another project? And which also
details that they've already bolted-on a JIT that was created by Adobe?

(And the irony that you're wanting them to adopt a codebase that exists mainly
because Apple didn't follow your anti-NIH advice and adopt Gecko has already
been covered in other comments, though no-one seems to have mentioned that
Google could have have just worked on Webkit's Squirrelfish/Nitro rather than
write V8, which meant they had two competing projects internally until they
switched fully in version 2.0 of Android last September)

~~~
icey
I don't care what engine they use; it's largely irrelevant to me.

I mentioned that Mozilla is known for having NIH syndrome in response to the
parent's question as to why they would use their own JS engine instead of V8.
jrockway's point about the timing of it is probably correct, but it doesn't
change the fact that people have brought up Mozilla's NIH for years.

~~~
bad_user
When wanting to use your own engine instead of V8 ... it's not always NIH.

They have developers on board familiar with the TraceMonkey codebase. They
have developers from Adobe helping out with the Tamarin codebase. That's
inside knowledge they would lose and it's debatable if on the long term V8
will deliver ... yes, right now it's the fastest, but is it the fastest
approach?

Outsourcing a vital component of a project to another open-source project
that's younger and hasn't proven its long-term viability should certainly be
taken with a lot of care.

Personally I'm pretty happy with Firefox. The only thing bothering me is the
single-process model, versus the one process per tab of Chrome, but I'm pretty
sure they'll fix that pretty soon.

~~~
ewjordan
_The only thing bothering me is the single-process model, versus the one
process per tab of Chrome, but I'm pretty sure they'll fix that pretty soon._

I really hope so. My average number of tabs open seems to be growing
logarithmically over time (lately I've been weighing in at about 40, which is
not even that many if you use Tree Style Tabs and put your tabs on the left),
so I have a whole lot of tabs to reload every time I crash. And that happens
quite a bit more often than it should, since I have so many tabs open.

If and when Chrome gets a left-side tree tab extension that works on OS X
(haven't checked lately, I should keep an eye out), I'll be switching over
almost immediately, for this reason alone.

------
volomike
I wait for the headline that reads, Microsoft borrows from Webkit to build the
next IE. I'd never use it but for testing, but it would sure make my life as a
developer easier...eventually.

