[high_na_euv]

Why would you need to reinvent networking layer instead of just sending http requests via matrue, battle tested lib available in your programming ecosystem e.g from MSFT? Same with crypto, sockets, compression, etc?

Video and audio I mentioned.

Extensions are tricky, right, but more from privacy standpoint cuz after all you can just expose too much

[michaelt]

All the major browsers came out when Windows XP had substantial market share.

So browser vendors couldn't rely on the platform to provide up-to-date SSL support. Or MP3 support. Or MPEG-4 support. Or PDF support. This established the norm that browsers would ship their own video support, their own SSL support, and so on.

And Google realised they like the power this gives them - if Google wants to replace HTTP with QUIC or introduce a new video DRM standard, or a new video codec like VP9 - they don't need the cooperation of anyone outside of Google.

If Chrome bundles DRM support (allowing it to play Netflix), and its own HTTP/2 stack for speed - are you going to release a browser that's slower and doesn't play Netflix? Doesn't sound like a recipe for big market share.

[Yoric]

Many of these components have been made part of the ecosystem long after they were introduced in Firefox. Also, the more platform-specific you go for each component, the more you're going to introduce subtle incompatibilities between Firefox running on different versions of Windows or in Firefox for Windows vs. macOS vs. Linux. Also, for a very, very long time, Microsoft had an extremely poor record in terms of security fixes. So what happens when you rely on a Microsoft http library and Microsoft takes a year or two to release a 0-day?

There are benefits to this approach, of course, but the costs would have been consequential.

[viraptor]

Browsers are using new http features much earlier than they're available in the system libraries. Browsers supported http2 and 3 before they were standardised enough to include in systems. .net http client still can't even tell you about http2 early hints as far as I understand it.

It's going to be the same for crypto and compression. Systems don't ship with brotli for example. The battle tested implementations come to the browsers first in many cases - or at least they're battle tested at the point anyone starts including them in .net or Java.

[high_na_euv]

Sure, not being at the leading edge is a disadvantage, but I guess you could still handle 99.x% of web pages

[Ygg2]

> Why would you need to reinvent networking layer instead of just sending http requests via matrue, battle tested lib available in your programming ecosystem e.g from MSFT?

Because modern browsers are essentially cross-compatible OSes.

[high_na_euv]

So is .net

[eqvinox]

You've clearly never tried to use .net on a non-MS OS. Sure, it's possible. But it's also a royal pain, at least last time I checked.

[high_na_euv]

I had .net on prod linux since 2018 and it works very fine seamlessly, web apps.

Things changed after core

[eqvinox]

I'm happy to hear of your experience, but all we have at this point is a sample size of 2 with one good experience and one poor one…

(I've tried [and failed/given up after about 2 weeks] to get a .net desktop application to build on Linux.)

[neonsunset]

I hope you haven't been trying to use Mono or something obscure for this, which unfortunately happens from time to time.

If you have .NET SDK installed (you can get it with apt/dnf install dotnet8 or dotnet-sdk-8.0), you only need the following:

  dotnet new install Avalonia.Templates
  dotnet new avalonia.app
  dotnet run

If you don't like XAML, you can use https://github.com/AvaloniaUI/Avalonia.Markup.Declarative to write declarative SwiftUI-like code. You can also use F# if that's your cup of tea: https://github.com/fsprojects/Avalonia.FuncUI.

If you prefer GTK, there are rich GObject bindings that are a successor to GTK#: https://gircore.github.io/

Here are samples that demonstrate basic GTK4 usage scenarios: https://github.com/gircore/gir.core/tree/main/src/Samples/Gt...

All this should require less than 10 minutes including setup and such.

Lastly, I want to make a disclaimer that you do not need C# Dev Kit extension (which requires an account that annoys many people, including me) for VS Code, only the base C# one, which is what gives you language server, debugger, etc. If you are using VSCodium which cannot use closed-source vsdbg component that the base extension uses, you can replace it with https://github.com/muhammadsammy/free-vscode-csharp which uses open-source debugger from Samsung instead. It can be rough around the edges but works well enough in standard scenarios. Just don't use Debugger.WriteLine over Console. :D