Because it IS futile. Occam's Razor shaped hobby project, that what it is. Where is the market share? Nowhere, because existing browsers are good enough and no corporation pushes Ladybird.

Showing how far one can go with modern AI tooling does matter only a little when all you do is looking at Chromium/Firefox code and recompiling the logic of it in another language.

I'll stick with Firefox.

▲

kvuj a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Showing how far one can go with modern AI tooling does matter only a little when all you do is looking at Chromium/Firefox code and recompiling the logic of it in another language.

Is that what Ladybird does? Can you point to a real world example? From the blog post, it seems there are real world differences (look at the performance when resizing with heavy JS!).

You're also mixing arguments. The original arguments against ladybird (which I vividly remember as I loved following them back then) were that it would be impossible to arrive at something that works for all use cases. Ladybird would be able to render toy websites like hacker news, but nothing of worth.

It seems they were proven evidently wrong.

▲

JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Where is the market share?

Where was the market share for browsers in the 1980s?

▲

jljljl a day ago | parent [-]

But that's the thing: it's not 1980 anymore, browsers exist, and they have marketshare

	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent [-]
		> it's not 1980 anymore, browsers exist, and they have marketshare Okay, sure. What was the market share for Chrome in 1999? There are legitimate arguments against Ladybird. But pointing to the market share of a non-existent product, in a category on the verge of a paradigm shift from AI, is not one of them.

▲

anthk a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Waterfox switched their AD blocking engine to Rust. It's several times faster than UBo.