Author Topic: The new browser / QT5  (Read 2977 times)

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 149
  • Posts: 2113
    • View Profile
Re: The new browser / QT5
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2019, 02:35:09 am »
There's not many options besides the QT based browser. FF52 could still be ported and then the various forks such as PaleMoon could be ported. Really, now there is the Webkit browsers, Firefox and its forks.

Tuure Linden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 4
  • -Receive: 2
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: The new browser / QT5
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2019, 01:54:55 pm »
And portin RUST to OS/2 is absolutely impossible?

Personally I think it has been a bad idea to come up with such a programming language. Many legacy systems won't get Firefox releases anymore because of that... For example TenFourFox for PowerPC Macs is now doomed.

Jochen Schäfer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 17
  • -Receive: 7
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: The new browser / QT5
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2019, 02:57:13 pm »
Nothing is impossible, but even porting QT5 in C++ is a major undertaking.
In theory, one could build a Rust cross compiler from the C/C++ Rust compiler and then compile Rust with the cross compiler. That's what I read about how most ports are done.
But it's time consuming and it's also a 4 GB dead end.

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 393
  • -Receive: 79
  • Posts: 2371
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: The new browser / QT5
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2019, 04:12:41 pm »
Hi.

And portin RUST to OS/2 is absolutely impossible?

I don't think it is impossible, but not being a programmer I can not estimate the effort. Maybe the logical path was that it was less effort (I'm not saying that is easy or effortless) to port Qt 5 and a Qt browser than posting Rust and compiling Firefox. So that makes more sense for a community like us, which is struggling for resources. (money, developers, etc)

Personally I think it has been a bad idea to come up with such a programming language....

I can not say that Rust is technically good or bad (haven't used it), but I what is interesting is that is a new language that already has a "killer/flagship application" created under his technology, which is Firefox. But, how relevant is Firefox today? or, how strong is Mozilla's funding to push Rust harder on the market/community?. As my personal opinion, at the moment I'm not convinced of the Rust adoption in software, maybe the future will slap me in the face, but I would prefer Qt5, Node.js, OpenJDK to be ported to OS/2 before Rust.

Regards
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

Olafur Gunnlaugsson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 33
  • -Receive: 16
  • Posts: 163
    • View Profile
Re: The new browser / QT5
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2019, 04:29:24 pm »
And portin RUST to OS/2 is absolutely impossible?

Personally I think it has been a bad idea to come up with such a programming language. Many legacy systems won't get Firefox releases anymore because of that... For example TenFourFox for PowerPC Macs is now doomed.

It is not impossible to port the rust compiler, but it is quite a big project and the only use for it really is for the Mozilla ecosystem, we have had problems maintaining much more popular programming tools in the past due to a lack of available programming talent and/or programmers willing/able to give up their free time to do maintenance  them, so focusing what little resources the community has on it will bring only limited amount of software to the platform.

The language features are also strangely old fashioned with lack of memory management (optional or otherwise) and modularity, especially given that the main problems associated with Mozilla browsers in the past have been related to memory leaks, the lack of a modularity is a pain since the rust toolchain is terribly slow making GGC seem fast by comparison. It would in its current state also need redesigning for use on OS/2, as it stands now it is too memory hungry, in fact has not possible to build the toolchain on 32 bit systems since 2014 (modularity would help a lot with this), although this is a language implementation issue and not a technical issue, i.e. it is perfectly possible to create or modify a rust compiler that works on 32 bit systems, but it will add considerably to the effort needed to port it.

The odd thing about rust while it is indeed a safer language than C++ and this is touted by Mozilla as the main reason for its existence, it is still not a safe language, making it yet another safeish functional language variant of which there are already a few thousands. It is a bit perplexing why mozilla choose to invent a new language that sports no new features rather than using an existing language and toolchain ....

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 149
  • Posts: 2113
    • View Profile
Re: The new browser / QT5
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2019, 04:36:07 pm »
Porting Rust would be a huge effort. The whole toolchain would need reporting including GCC to use ELF instead of AOUT, then LLVM ported and then could start on Rust. Rust itself was quite hard to even port to the BSD's. Possibly years for a compiler guru to do. Then it sounds like a memory hog which would need more then 4GBs to build Firefox. OS/2 was actually one of the last 32bit platforms that could build Firefox.
A cross compiler might be easier, but still a big job really requiring a developer who really groks compilers and OS/2.

Tuure Linden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 4
  • -Receive: 2
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: The new browser / QT5
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2019, 09:02:58 pm »
And there's nothing wrong with the QT besides the short lifecyckle of major versions. It makes writing cross platform software very easy if I have understood right. I've never used the environment myself. What might be the reason why the make new versions so frequently, I have no idea... Back in the day I liked software made with QT3 and KDE 3 series Desktop was great in Linux. I absolutelu hated KDE4 and I don't like KDE5 so much neither. There is Trinity Desktop that is based on the latest KDE 3 release but it has compatibility issues with newer Linux distros and it seems that it's quite difficult to maintain QT3 software in the world of QT4 and 5.