> Are you seriously making the claim that web browsers are not hard and complex to build?
No, I'm making the claim that web browsers are hard and complex, but not impossible and that it's weird how the tech community seems to have decided that it's impossible because it isn't simple.
What is the point though? Yes, in theory it is possible to make yet another broken implementation of broken technology. Going all pedantic on Devault and armchairing "no but acshually" isn't really contributing to the discussion at all, nor does it undermine their argument.
I don't get your polemics here. Where's the line between hard and impossible? It's no less impossible to build a web browser than it is to build pyramids, because both these things have been done before. But what does this mean? Why should we accept something that -- while theoretically not impossible -- is way harder and requires way more resources than necessary, and that is guided by the most pathological incentives (ad revenue)?
No, I'm making the claim that web browsers are hard and complex, but not impossible and that it's weird how the tech community seems to have decided that it's impossible because it isn't simple.