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.