low resource web browser

are there any web browsers out there with full support for javascript, and can render html normally? I wouldn't need anything like flash or java applets, but full support for fancy javascript would be nice for getting through fancy web sites and such. If one doesn't exist, I think I might try to make one, and shoot for 5 - 15MB of ram usage.

I have this problem too. The javascript enabled browser is the most ludicrous piece of software I run. Everything else is fine.

I have tried everything. My only hope is presently webkitnix.
http://nix.openbossa.org

>>121
So called "lightweight" browsers based on webkit appear every now and then (uzbl, vimprobable, xombrero, etc), and all of them are useless. When it comes to just browsing, they are mostly fine, but they fail to block all those crappy ads, slow scripts, other shit. I tried them all, and switched back to firefox with several decent plugins. Besides, webkit is JUST FUCKING BLOATED.

>>122
I know, I've also tried them all and I also switched back to firefox with several decent plugins. The project I linked in >>121 does not depend on gtk, unlike uzbl, surf, jumanji, luakit and xombrero.

It doesn't make such a big difference, but might be incentive enough for me to build all the filtering scripts myself. uzbl was almost ok.

In many cases "lightweight" in the "suckless" or UNIX sense means "does not do anything useful".

Small is not beautiful. Useful and understandable is beautiful (which may also be small, but does not need to be).

I like Firefox.

>>124
I have been using Firefox from the beginning (it took me only a couple of minutes to download Phoenix back then, on my dial-up modem and it fitted on a floppy disk)

I don't like it anymore. I want to switch before it's dead (which is coming sooner than you think)

>>113
Not yet... it's not even got a UI at the moment. Maybe once it passes Acid2.

>>114
1.2MB? HTML3.2 only (NO CSS)? I don't want to be too optimistic here but I'm going to say even that is bloated compared to my revised estimates. I could take what I have now (which is HTML5 compliant) and add a dumb renderer that doesn't care about CSS at all and just uses the defaults, and it'd probably still stay below 256KB. What I'm aiming at is 1MB for HTML5 + CSS2.1 (maybe some of 3, we'll see) + ECMAScript 5.1.

>>118
Use != waste. And your process is not the only process on the system. It shares that memory along with all the others, so it makes sense to use as little as needed, otherwise you start using virtual memory, and that is when things slow down.

>>122
Look above you in the thread, there are dozens of these "browser shells" that just change the UI and nothing about the core rendering engine itself.

>>124
Why else do you think I'm aiming for HTML5 (other than the fact that its parsing algorithm is detailed in the spec)? This isn't like NetSurf or Dillo or any of the other original browsers out there - it's going to be far smaller than anything else, but at the same time more featured and compatible with more websites. It's designed to be the simplest thing that can possibly work. I don't really care about JS speed as long as it's "good enough" for most websites; besides, what's worse than all your other apps thrashing VM because your browser decided to eat all the RAM for its JS "optimisation"? Cut out all the "abstraction layer" cruft and FUCK "portability" (we're in a Windows world, I may do X11 in the future if I move there exclusively but they will NOT be the same codebase.) Don't have libraries upon libraries piled on top of what OS provides. Make the rendering path as direct as possible. No silly enterprise design patterns soup.

This is also going to be the web browser that puts YOU in control. Per-site/per-domain/per-path settings for security and privacy; a UI that doesn't treat users like idiots by hiding everything; total control over JS execution environment and rendered page contents (although I don't really want to turn it into a full interactive HTML editor); choose what plugins you want to run on which pages, and what they can do.

Ambitious? Definitely. Crazy? Insane? Maybe. But it's clear the only users browser vendors are listening to these days are the mindless idiots who want to be mollycoddled, and if us power user's complaints aren't going to be observed, we must do it ourselves. I realised this many years ago. Staying passive and complaining won't change anything. Failure or not, there is no other option.

When it gets to the point of passing Acid2, it will be released into the public domain. After all, this will become your browser, the people's browser, not mine. I may share further improvements to mine and I will encourage you to share yours, but unlike the forced-update mentality of other browser vendors, there will be no obligation. It will be yours to do with as you wish.

>>127

This young Lisp puppy knows a fellow EXPERT programmer when he sees one (don't treat the user like a retard, direct rendering path, public domain) and looks forward to seeing what you come up with :)

I like my Firefox but it's sad that the choice is Firefox, IE, Chrome, Safari and Opera and various "hardcore" (i.e. unusable) U.I skins (they're all samey).

>>126
It's going to be (...)

Nothing. You make nice speeches, Cudder but fail to deliver.

Anonix, the anonymous Operating System ended up being a trivial rewriting of cat and echo. Your NASA-grade decompiler is too dangerous to be released. You're giving up fame and money for a safer world, I presume. And your 64k html5 compliant browser is just you waving your dick in the air. As usual.

>>129

I think unfortunately there are a lot of talented programmers who have "project ADHD" and end up getting nothing done. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be trying.

>>130

I do want to add to my positive previous comments that I also think saying "as long as it's good enough" is a sign of a not very mature programmer but pobody's nerfect.

>>125
It's still better than WebShit.

>>130
Yeah, fair enough.

>>129
Anonix, the anonymous Operating System ended up being a trivial rewriting of cat and echo.
Oh G-d, I remember that. That's when Cudder was pretending to be three girls instead of one. I'm surprised he's still around and even more so that he's still putting up the pretense of having any skill as a programmer whatsoever.

Cudder is essentially Terry A. Davis with all the delusions and none of the talent.

>>134
I wouldn't go as far as calling him non-skilled. Nikita was probably right when he described him as "a kike writing viri for shady russian business"

>>136
non-skilled
writing viruses
Are you... an idiot?

>>128
Chrome and Safari are both WebKit, so the current set of mainstream browser rendering engines really reduces down to IE's Trident, Firefox's Gekko, and all the WebKit shells.

>>129
Anonix reached the point where anoncoreutils was 50% complete (all my *nix systems have the utilities that were completed), but what lead to its demise was a decline in participation and motivation; it was a community project but interest waned. This (currently) isn't a community project, it's something I've been working on intermittently for the past couple of years. More importantly, the motivation for this is strong: every time I'm irritated by the browsers I use, I work on it for a little while. Anoncoreutils came out of the observation that GNU coreutils is bloated, and it was a source of irritation, but far less than that of the browsers available today. There are far more users of browsers, including those who have no idea what a command line is.

The decompiler/analysis system is a source of income for me and quite a few others, so it wouldn't make sense to release that (yet). I am not aiming for 64k, I am aiming for 1MB. Didn't I say this before?

>>130
There is a lot of software I wish to rewrite, but the one that stands out to me due to how much use it gets and annoyance it has caused me is the browser. Unlike a bloated GNUtility that really ticks me off only when Chrome and Safari are both WebKit, so the current set of mainstream browser rendering engines really reduces down to IE, Firefox, and I do an ls on the filesize or stumble on the sourcecode, the browser stands out whenever I use it.

I'm not specifically aiming at "low resource", but it just happens to be the easiest way of doing it, as a side-effect of omitting all useless complexity. I'm not asking for community help or anything (unless OP is still here; ideas would be nice). Maybe in another 2 years' time something interesting will appear, maybe not. That's the way that it goes, and it's what nobody knows.

>>136
Shalom!

>>137
What words weren't clear? Can you read a whole sentence?

>>140
you read a whole sentence?
Sometimes

>>138
Anoncoreutils came out of the observation that GNU coreutils is bloated, and it was a source of irritation

Unlike with Javascript browsers, you had a lot of decent alternatives: Busybox, Toybox, Heirloom...

>>138
GNU coreutils is bloated
Yet it consistently beats every alternative in benchmarks.

>>142
Not public domain. But that also shows, the license isn't really all that important (to anyone besides RMS or Theo).

>>143
The benchmarks done on GNU coreutils vs Anoncoreutils has shown otherwise... ACU is all several times smaller than GNU but none of them are several times slower.

(Very rough) initial UI done. This is a 3KB binary with nothing else but the shell. http://i41.tinypic.com/2modzt4.png

What happened to HAHAHaruhi and w4lolitaKs?

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=279464
"Since we have too many developers who would otherwise be doing nothing, let's reinvent scrollbars, and make them harder to use. When the users complain, ignore them until enough threaten to leave, then 'fix' the most obvious complaint and leave the others so we can have more work to do in the future."

:facepalm:

Cudder, you have too much free time.

>>147
Quite the opposite actually...

>>146
Who are you quoting? You are not quoting anybody.

>>149
He is employing an advanced rhetoric technique called "le implying", if I'm not mistaken.

>>148
>le busy kike

>>149
>le pedophile sage

>>151
shalom