Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google To Allow Rust Code In The Chromium Browser

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Common arguments against Rust's safety guarantees:
    - The library you're binding to can have a segfault in it.
    - RAM can physically fail, causing dangling pointers.
    - The computer the Rust program is running on can be hit by a meteorite.
    - Alan Turing can come back from the dead and tell everyone that he actually made up computer science and none of it is real, thus invalidating every program ever made, including all Rust programs.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by user1 View Post

      Not everyone is a free software zealot that avoids non free software like a plague..
      I generally prefer to use open source software as much as I can, but if there's a non free software that I really like (and trurst), I have no problem using it.

      But just to be clear, I persobally use Firefox because I prefer it to any Chromium based browser for various reasons. But if it didn't exist for example, I would've probably used Vivaldi (which despite not being open source is actually a privacy oriented browser).
      It depends on the type of software. I also use some non free software, but the browser is too essential for personal privacy and security.

      Comment


      • #73
        Google Chrome has been getting exponentially slower over the past year(s)... and now adding Rust code?

        What next will be added to Google Chrome? ...

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by rogerx View Post
          Google Chrome has been getting exponentially slower over the past year(s)... and now adding Rust code?

          What next will be added to Google Chrome? ...
          If done well (to be seen, but Google developers are not exactly incompetent), the use of Rust will help eliminate memory leaks (which are a huge problem in Chrome) and make it easier to take advantage of parallelism. So hopefully it will make the browser faster, not slower.

          Comment


          • #75
            Chrome/chronium doesn't scale on wayland. It is esentially broken.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by user1 View Post
              It's just infuriating when people don't know sh!t about Vivaldi (for example don't know about its unique features or the fact that it's actually a pretty good privacy oriented browser, yes, despite not being open source to the surprise of some, which doesn't even have a history of doing shady stuff behind user's back unlike Brave for example)
              I'm evaluating Brave these days, could you please give me more info/references to the shady stuff done by Brave.
              Thanks

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by rogerx View Post
                Google Chrome has been getting exponentially slower over the past year(s)... and now adding Rust code?

                What next will be added to Google Chrome? ...
                Slowness is entirely from Google's telemetry services. I use Brave and it's probably the most optimized Chromium-based browser on the market. Pretty much any non-Google Chromium-based browser is faster than Google Chrome.
                Also adding a language to a project has no bearing on it's performance. Chromium is already a multi-process program communicating through IPC, no language runtime (especially not one on-par with C) is going to compare to that delay.

                Originally posted by horizonbrave View Post

                I'm evaluating Brave these days, could you please give me more info/references to the shady stuff done by Brave.
                Thanks
                No idea what he's talking about. Maybe that only "producers" can actually get money out of Brave's BAT? And they can choose whether to cut you off or not. Otherwise, if you don't register to be some kind of service or content producer, you can't get money for BAT, only give it to other people.
                I don't even use the ad feature. I used to for a time to donate to some websites I used, as they actually did register to be a service and did get money for it, but I stopped using those sites, so I don't use the opt-in ads anymore.
                Other than that, Brave is fantastic. Very fast, great features, privacy focused, built-in adblocker. Created by the guy who founded Mozilla. It's the real modern Firefox, after Mozilla became nothing but a Google wanna-be shell of it's former self.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by horizonbrave View Post

                  I'm evaluating Brave these days, could you please give me more info/references to the shady stuff done by Brave.
                  Thanks
                  I think they're referring to stuff like this: Brave browser CEO apologizes for automatically adding affiliate links to cryptocurrency URLs - The Verge

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by Volta View Post

                    Google Chrome is a f****ng spyware. Only closed [source] minded people don't know this:

                    https://www.sciencealert.com/a-tech-...-google-chrome


                    You are being very incoherent. Instead of linking to an article, can you please be kind enough to list your concerns in plain points? Regarding location, I like it. it's very handy. It tailors services to my workflow and location. This means I don't get ads from my competitors or from vendors I cannot physically reach.
                    I have standard safe browsing on + ublock origin. No cookies are being stored unless they originate from the websites I am visiting.

                    Additionally, could you please rephrase your sentences into something that doesn't make me feel you are making a pointless rant? I'm trying to benefit from your technical experience here.
                    Thank you very much in advance.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by Ironmask View Post
                      - The library you're binding to can have a segfault in it.
                      Indeed; often exposed by the fact that Rust needs bindings in the first place. These require a number of unsafe sections and memory lifetime tracking is difficult; even for someone experienced so it makes sense the bindings have munged the memory.

                      Had you avoided the need for bindings in the first place, many of these kind of segfaults can be avoided.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X