On Apr 30, 2011, at 12:05 AM, errno wrote:

> But APE has c++  (old version of gcc though).

APE has no c++. there is a very old version of gcc floating around on
sources that can, with some effort, sometimes be made to compile things.

> I expect that a webkit (or gecko) port would need to rely on APE, right?

it'd need to rely on whatever provided the c++ compiler and libraries. getting
some useful set of those is itself a sizable effort.

> I guess I'd have to start with the build dependencies first, some of
> them might already be on contrib somewhere.

if you really want to do it, start with the c++ compiler. then look at webkit's
own dependencies (about half of which we have APE versions for, although
i'm skeptical of mixing that and g++-compiled code).

> I operated on the understanding that Plan 9 gets developed according
> to peoples' desire to scratch particular itches. I was also operating 
> under the impression that the clean and well-designed nature of plan 9's
> abstractions and architecture would facilitate making hard problems easier.

i think those are valid assumptions. however:

> If it is accepted that people do in fact want a fully functional native (or
> "native-ish") web experience on Plan 9, what is the logical explanation for it
> still not existing after so many years?

because it's a huge amount of work. there's a whole pile of standards and
pseudo-standards to deal with, the set is ever-growing, the components are
ever-growing, and there isn't really a good definition of "correct". think about
the hours that've gone into making webkit (or worse, gecko) what it is. and
all that work is ongoing.

making an infinitely difficult problem significantly easier still yields an
infinitely difficult problem.

it's all just a hideous mess. it'd be nice to have a good, plan9-ish solution, but
it's awful tempting to just run opera under linuxemu or go buy a tablet to
treat as a web browser in hardware.