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.
>>85,86
The suckless guys were actually disappointed with surf because of its reliance on WebKit and GTK+. The author said he wouldn't maintain it and recommended NetSurf or something instead.
Then again, they updated it recently, so perhaps they had a change of heart.
who cares? i'm not a poorfag from le africa buy more CPU ROFL XDDDDDDD
LOL I JUST LITERALLY
PEED
MY
PANTS
JUST A LITTE THOUGH
I MEAN ITS A LITTLE SPOT NOT LIKE IT RUINED MY CHAIR R NYTHING LOL BUT FOR REAL EPIC LULZ *HIGH FIVES* XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD
WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL THIS IS A SHIT XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD A BIG ONE XDDDDDDDD A GRAT ONE XXXXXXDDDD CONGRATS MAN XD
U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD
WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL THIS IS A SHIT hgXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD A BIG ONE XDDDDDDDD A GRAT ONE XXXXXXDDDD CONGRATS MAN XD
HOOOOOOOOLLLLLLYYYYY SHIT
whatr the HELL
WHATA FUCK MAN xD
i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh
>>78
The core of the complexity is the HTML/CSS rendering engine. HTTP and everything else is auxillary, so you can use what's existing. Most OSs will have a network and graphics stack.
>>82 Dillo
Yes. K-Meleon
Shell for Firefox w3m
Yes. links/lynx/elinks
Yes, perhaps a bit too minimal.
Taking an existing rendering engine and giving it a new shell doesn't really change much. Rendering speed will be the same, and so will the rendering engine's memory usage.
>>101
Wow. That's a really nice come back. I'm so overcome with your humor that I have lost control my limbs, slipped out from my chair and embedded a pen into my eye socket. Fortunately your humor has distracted me from the pain, and if given the choice, I would pay the price again to view your wonderful post.
I'll learn fucking braille and use a speech synthesizer if I have to. FUCK IT'S WORTH IT. I DON'T CARE IF MY EAR DRUMS ARE PUNCTURED AND MY FINGERS ARE SEVERED. THIS INFORMATION IS TOO FUCKING FUNNYYYYYYYYY
are there any ray tracers out there with full support for voxels, and can render refraction normally? I wouldn't need anything like volumetric shaders or non-uniform refractive index, but full support for fancy refraction would be nice for getting through fancy images and such. If one doesn't exist, I think I might try to make one, and shoot for 5 - 15KB of ram usage.
are there any JAVA compilers out there with full support for bigints, and can do whole program optimization? I wouldn't need anything like quantum computation or 128-bit floating point, but full support for whole program optimization would be nice for getting through fancy applets and such. If one doesn't exist, I think I might try to make one, and shoot for 5 - 15 bytes of ram usage.
A little more than 2 years later and it seems my estimates in >>51 were quite pessimistic. Seeing the multi-megabyte beasts of browsers today probably bloated my own thoughts on how much code we really need...
I now have a HTML5 parser + DOM tree construction in under 24KB of binary, and this is before even having done any real attempt at optimisation on the code - the tokenizer is simpler than what's in the spec (but isn't a state machine) although should accept the same stuff, and the tree construction is almost exactly following spec, just ignoring all error detection (what's a parse error? that which by any other name would render just as well...) - and it's written in 32-bit C.
Entropy calculations suggest a lower bound for the parser and tree construction somewhere around 12KB, I'm guessing it maybe achievable with Asm and closer to 16-20KB with just factoring out the duplicated code in C (the 12KB tokenizer I mentioned above is a dumb state machine as per the spec, so if I rewrote this one in Asm it would likely turn out much smaller.)
Now all we need is just a CSS parser/box generator and renderer, and some miscellaneous UI and other bits, and WE'VE WRITTEN A FUCKING HTML5-COMPLIANT WEB BROWSER IN A <1MB EXECUTABLE!!!
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-01 6:25
But if it doesn't grind your computer to a halt how do you know it's working?
shoot for 5 - 15MB of ram usage
Why do people think that less RAM usage is a good thing? You buy RAM so you can use it. If you're not using RAM, you're reading from the disk, and your program is slow as shit. Let's say you render the visual part of the page then clear all memory. Every time the user scrolls, you read and parse the page from disk then clear the memory again. Now you have a stuttering clusterfuck of shit software killing your disk so your sacred RAM doesn't get wasted by doing something useful. Gee, why not add arbitrary sleep(1)'s to your code so you don't waste CPU cycles. Now you're a real EXPERT PROGRAMMER!!
>>118
I know what he's talking about. You ps chrome and it uses hundreds of megs of RAM. That would be fine if it was doing something, but it's mostly just sitting there. I agree with >>1 that there might be a better balance.