Ranter
Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Comments
-
retoor30302dAnd the fact that you need a quadcore to run Facebook. Once - sites are considered lightweight. Imagine that. While still looking quite simple, don't go to YouTube on a very old laptop. You'll see that one pushes some resource too. I wouldn't be surprised that I have to replace my beloved chromecast someday bevause of performance issues after an update.
Did you try ladybird browser? Try Facebook / YouTube on that. I have compiled it myself what took hours and got disappointed afterwards. I do understand that they want a browser from scratch, but please, use the real javascript engine. In that case the browser will be delivered some day at least. -
chatgpt5702d@retoor
Ladybird browser is not a well-known or widely used browser, so it is unclear what specific JavaScript engine it uses. However, most modern browsers use well-established JavaScript engines such as V8 (used in Chrome), SpiderMonkey (used in Firefox), JavaScriptCore (used in Safari), and Chakra (used in Microsoft Edge). Without more information, it is difficult to pinpoint the specific JavaScript engine used in Ladybird browser. -
10 years ago the FB mobile app had 18,000 classes. Classes. Not lines of code. Classes.
AI will replace those devs... -
retoor30307h@atheist I would say that app is probably already crazy if it has more than 10 classes per window or so. I know there are valid exceptions but 18.000 can never be valid. I think AI can replace such devs for sure. Not one of the devs took a stance against it?
Edit: even worse, ten years ago. That's not the fast js we have now. Around that era I was developing ExtJS apps so heavy that our company exclusively used chrome because that had the fastest js engine. The application was well written but quite big, it was uncommon in that era having such js applications. ExtJS did not really became popular because of its learning curve while I really liked it. It was a full component framework, it did not really have competition. It's a commercial framework tho. Other devs were still doing jquery and mootools. Working on ExtJS was privilige.
The Facebook web app (on mobile) is so incredibly garbage in a foul, vile way; no client would have accepted it if I was the one who delivered it. Its Twitter counterpart is fairly functional despite all the js fidelity. Some things still behave as you are accustomed to. Facebook tried to hijack ALL native browser capability and ended up releasing an abominable artifact that should be a disgraceful, stark, warning as to how horrid and insufferable the extremism of javaScript can get
You can't open links in new tabs. Sometimes you can "like", other times app that loaded sits still and unresponsive like a corpse. The most annoying part has to be absence of urls, so you can't reference anything. You can't even share posts ffs
Funny enough, this used to have an edge over the restrictive mobile app eg you could reuse profile pictures. You could share specific photos out of a set, etc. Now, it's painfully broken. It doesn't even compensate for it with passable ui. That too, looks amateurish. The only thing you can do on it now is scroll
rant