2009/10/24 Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com>: > The chrome folks have managed to build something quite similar to > this, but they have huge development (and specially testing) > resources. This is another reason why I still think building surf on > top of the chromium infrastructure is a much better idea than using > webkit directly.
I have looked into chromium several times during last months for reasons that aren't related to suckless.org. I agreed in the beginning of surf to make it chromium based, but during the time (basically the more I looked into the chromium source and build system) I more and more conclude that chromium should be avoided. A recent debug build of chromium resulted in 10GB (!!!) overhead on my disk with a 450MB (!!!) chrome executable on Linux (stripped it was about 70MB (!!!)). The source tarball containing some svn history of chromium is 700MB -- if you ask me when comparing that to webkitgtk, webkit looks lean. So to summarise I don't think that making surf based on chromium is a good idea after all, even if some details and design decisions in chromium are nice. But it is definately not the suckless way and I also think we lack enough man power to maintain a rip-off of chromium for surf and keeping it in sync (esp. because there is no real documented chromium API, but there is a sort of ok;ish documented webkitgtk API). Kind regards, Anselm
