[sylware]

The real pertinent reason to regulate and to get noscript/basic (x)html web portals (at least on "critical" online services) is that "javascript" requires a grotesquely and absurdely massive and complex web engine, including its SDK.

The only web engines today are blink/geeko, financed by google(vanguard/blackrock), and webkit financed by apple(vanguard/blackrock). They are all written using c++ which has also a grotesquely and absurdely massive and complex syntax, and better not have a look at the compilers... aka double the pain.

In other words: "javascript" = don't have "big tech" controlled software? no web for you!

hard truth: bazillions of online services can work perfectly without a "javacript"-able web engine (javascript alone is some work but several orders of magnitude less), namely basic (x)html forms can do wonders... and actually they were!! But web dev tantrums and planned obsolescence got involved.

The only way out of it is very strong regulation, and I am personally seeing lawyers to seek noscript/basic (x)html interoperability on "critical online services".

[charcircuit]

Blink, gecko, and webkit are not javascript engines. Those are v8, spidermonkey, and javascriptcore respectively.

[thex10]

> I am personally seeing lawyers to seek noscript/basic (x)html interoperability on "critical online services".

What is your personal incentive to do this beyond the ideological viewpoint of not being beholden to big tech?

For the record I’m in agreement with your stance, I’m just curious about this.

[sylware]

My government regulating body in charge of preserving interoperability with small /alternative tech and stability in time, at least for critical online services, is not doing its job.

Was even planing to bootstrap my own small/alternative "tech" from some small/alternative noscript/basic (x)html components. Namely without the 489374392843 devs financed by google or apple...

Not to mention, it is a quasi-monopoly: blink is a fork of webkit, and geeko is kept alive by google (probably as a protection against anti-trust regulation). It is even worse from an "owner" point of view: from a "vanguard/blackrock" point of view, this is monopoly. That would concern the general anti-trust regulating body.

There are certainly way more to that, I am discussing with lawyers what to present to the judge.

[c-cube]

Quickjs exists, and serenity OS' browser (ladybird) show that js engines, and js-able browsers, are doable by developers outside giant corporations.

[sylware]

ladybird is c++ and I was carefull to include the issue of c++ too. Depending on the grotesque and absurd c++ syntax complexity which make any c++ compiler, even naive, out of reach for any real-life and reasonably-sized alternative is a mistake on the same level than the current web engines. I said "double the pain".

It would have been much more interesting to have ladybird written in plain and simple C (with the right compile-time and runtime function tables and NOT compiling with only gcc or clang). Maybe it is not too late to fix that.

That said the real core of the pb, is the "javascript-ed" web itself, bazillions (if not all) of critical online services should work with noscript/basic (x)html browsers.

QuickJS shows that the issue is actually the "javascript-ed" webengine and the c++ language, not solo "javascript".

[c-cube]

> It would have been much more interesting to have ladybird written in plain and simple C (with the right compile-time and runtime function tables and NOT compiling with only gcc or clang). Maybe it is not too late to fix that.

Quite the opposite. The serenityOS people are implementing their own programming language, [jakt](https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt), which currently compiles to C++, and they'll move the codebase progressively to it as they go. I personally doubt that the project could have moved so fast in just a few years if it had been using C instead of C++.

[sylware]

I remember now, I did have a look at that.

I guess if they don't make jakt another c++ (ultra complex syntax), and do manage to have a jakt compiler to machine code, maybe they will beat rust and its servo web engine.

[justusw]

As far as I understand, Gecko and Blink are completely separate, and if we were to put things together with slashes, Chrome/Edge/Opera (Blink) and then Safari (WebKit) share the same lineage (and even Konqueror!). Firefox/Gecko come from a very different direction. To call out investors behind commercial project fails to acknowledge the rich OSS history behind the browser engines. By no means I intend to disregard the tremendous influence Google exerts on web standards with their browser monopoly, but putting it all in the same bin does not help the issue anymore so.

[sylware]

I don't believe in that much incompetence at this level. I believe the current landscape of "web engines" is mostly steered by the people of "vanguard/blackrock" (apple/vanguard/microsoft/etc) and that they know they have a monopoly over the web and they are trying to blur this landscape to avoid regulation. This is so accute, I am seeing toxic malice for the humanity now and nothing else.