Hi Jesse, Hadrien, > > In regard to "replace webkit with something sane" from the TODO.md > > fileincluded within surf. I'm not sure if you all are aware of this: > > https://github.com/SteveDeFacto/zsurf > > Little abandoned project in the vein of surf, but using webengine > > backend. > > > > I'm a huge fan of Suckless. Use dwm, dmenu, and st daily. Webkit is > > all that stops me from using surf. I work in web development and sadly > > most websites are optimised for use with webengine/blink. I know > > virtually nothing about C and such. Yet I am easily able to configure > > every suckless tool/utility. This is no doubt due to extensive > > documentation and logical configuration. It's also nice having > > my config baked into the source code, as a fork. Versus having to > > keep track of config files. Nor do I have to worry about pacman > > updating the software to be incompatible with my configurations. > > > > Anyway, thought I'd float this out to you guys. Might be a good > > starting point for surf with a webengine backend. > > > > -Jesse Limerick > > > > > > I think you're lost, mate. If you want some hints about why: webkit's > tar.xz is 20M while qtwebengine is 244M, one is made in C and useable in > C while the other is a C++ only abomination requiring Qt. > Don't misunderstand, though, Webkit is also horrible.
While webkit is C++ too, don't be naive about that, this is true that the GTK port wrapper is C and this is nicer to interface with it. I don't think that even if we wanted to interface with QtWebengine, it's possible to build it outside the whole Qt framework. There is little to no incentive from Google to make a good C API for interfacing with CEF/blink/whatever and even less for having a humanly bearable way to build it so not much in that way either. WebkitGTK is still the less sucky backend available, but it remains an ugly monster.
