Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gtjrossi 4127 days ago
Actually, our approach is effectively yielding the results you're looking for.

Removal of old IE legacy cruft is slimming Spartan's disk and memory footprint when compared with IE. Advances in the Chakra engine are pushing performance ahead. We're rearchitecting our DOM, which is yielding perf and security wins too. We're planning an extension platform also, with top add-ons like ad block being a clear target.

There's a bit of a catch 22 with "get users" and "watch compatibility fix itself" as broken compatibility is often cited as a top reason for users to switch browsers. It's hard to grow users without investing in compatibility.

So what we're doing is defining our "blend" of investments. Right now we have a heavy amount of interop investments in our blend as we think that's important for users. Over time (months, not years) the major interop gaps will disappear and I expect we'll see a shift in that blend to increase investments in other areas.

(Jacob Rossi, Spartan platform engineering team)

6 comments

I strongly hope that there will be a drive among the major browser makers to do what it takes to make the future Web as powerful a platform as possible, even at the expense of delegating support for some old websites to legacy-support plug-ins. I personally would not have a problem with a dual-path approach to the Web: one set of browsers that specify a "current standards" Web platform with maximum capabilities, strict rules, and no legacy baggage, and an optional set of browser plug-ins, to which older, non-conforming sites are delegated.

This would allow the Web platform on small-capacity devices such as watches or headsets to grow in capability like an iOS device with its frequent OS upgrades and deprecation of older code, but would make the whole Web back to the earliest websites still accessible to somewhat larger and more capable devices (desktops, laptops) that could afford to include plug-ins for any old crazy code from the past.

I really don't want the Web to be the "we'll keep hanging on to the past" platform, while the native APIs are the "we'll keep bringing you the future" platforms.

Will there be an open source Linux build?

Edit: Really? Downmods for a legitimate question?

I think you got downvoted for asking a foolish question. If there were linux builds in the plans, they would have announced it. If open sourcing the whole thing was planned... well, you get the idea.
I don't see what is foolish about the question (and was taught [and believe] that there are no foolish questions).

MS has opened up their flagship development platform (.NET) and even has it building on Linux. MS will also rent you Linux virtual machines.

The post also talks about interoperability and running across many kinds of devices, including "try out RemoteIE which will stream our latest browser from the Azure cloud to Windows, iOS or Android devices."

First of all, the team who open-sourced .NET is a different one from that that is building IE. DevDiv has been very open-source-friendly for a few years by now.

Then there is the fact that .NET is far less tied to the platform than IE is. .NET is nothing more than a VM, runtime and GC. That's fairly easy to get cross-platform, compared to a GUI application that makes use of platform libraries for hw-accelerated drawing and text rendering.

What's foolish is to think that such a thing wouldn't have been announced outside of the comments section of some website.
Sorry, I don't have time to go through Microsoft's entire PR archive to verify. Why would anyone ask Microsoft (or an employee) a question then?
The first rule of Linux builds is...
So when your browser doesn't work on modern web sites that make up 90% of what people visit, people will site "broken compatibility" and then move to Chrome or Firefox. You'll then reiterate your focus on the few outdated sites that no one visits stating that "broken compatibility" is the cause.

I think you may be mistaking broken compatibility with backwards compatibility. I don't use IE because it doesn't work with modern web sites.

So you're saying that Microsoft doesn't break web standards, users do?

Cool logic from the company that refuse to follow any standard they haven't defined.

What languages will be supported for extensions?

Any chance of C# ?

hope you are going to support Shadow DOM/Web components soon - otherwise we will face new generation of "works only on Firefox and Chrome" apps