Comment by thro1
6 months ago
Yes. That's the right solution for the even playground regarding the situation:
Gecko currently has much deeper integration of the XSLT engine with the browser internals: The XSLT engine operates on the browser DOM implementation. WebKit and Chromium integrate with libxslt in a way that's inherently bad for performance ( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11578#issuecomment-321... )
Just Firefox XSLT is faster, better, cheaper than Google's (and JS), same, old Firefox extensions were to powerful Google could compete with Firefox (or block adblocks).
JS is very needed for ads, tracking and other strings attaching - and XSLT is not for that - but would make JS mostly obsolete in many cases.. (only "cross-browser functionality for XSLT is incomplete with certain features like <xsl:text disable-output-escaping="yes"> having open issues" ).
Google pay Mozilla to criple Firefox. It's money from ads, to not let the web be free. Right now, how much $ and CPU power a JS engine could cost, for that, is irrelevant - except for the final user !
Chrome clearly outcompeted Firefox despite Firefox’ faster XSLT implematation, so perhaps the performance of a feature which is almost never used is not that significant either way?
Chrome is outcompeting (or cripling) Firefox - in taking control from the user, payed by the user - right now, with your comment all backward (and catch 22, cross-browser functionality bugs never to be fixed).
All downvoted ? If not performance of [ONE] feature like JS engine, what would make Chrome better ? (crippling others). JS is used so much only because all other options are kept broken (since Microsoft JS XMLHttpRequest - for applications not documents, being the lowest common denominator - against few bugs that needed to be fixed, not much changed) - otherwise there will be no need of JS for documents processing and less energy wasted - and the bill is payed not by corporations but by users, with extra tracking taxes.
5 replies →