this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024

133 points (89.3% liked)

Open Source

30919 readers

500 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

133

Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred Language (linuxiac.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by warmaster to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I would have preferred Rust, a language created by Mozilla instead of one with ties to Apple, but I'm not a dev so I can't really judge. What are your thoughts?

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] InternetCitizen2 78 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Rust was made by Mozilla? TIL

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yep. It was developed to improve parallelization and security of Firefox. Many core parts of Firefox have been replaced with Rust implementations.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

I see now. Rust is the color of fox, and foxes eat crabs. It all makes sense now.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I thought it was weird such an old piece of software had so much Rust in it. I noticed all the Rust-related things while ~~Firefox~~ Librewolf compiles but never looked into it further.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 2 months ago

That's weird.

[–] 9point6 64 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Independent of corporate interests

Picks one of the few languages created due to corporate interests

This will die on the vine

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you :/

[–] dohpaz42 34 points 2 months ago

Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred Language Andreas Kling announces Swift as Ladybird's future language for better safety and ergonomics. Full transition awaits Swift 6.

ByBobby BorisovAugust 11, 2024 Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred Language Ladybird is a new name in the Linux ecosystem you might not be familiar with. So, let’s briefly explain what it’s all about.

It’s a web browser initiative, funded by $1 million, spearheaded by GitHub co-founder and former CEO Chris Wanstrath and tech visionary Andreas Kling. It seeks to challenge the status quo with a new browser written from scratch, completely independent of corporate interests. Our article on the subject has more on this. Now, back to the topic.

Over the past few months, Ladybird’s developers have been experimenting by rewriting different parts of the browser project in various languages. The outcome was clear: Swift emerged as the preferred choice among the team. According to Kling, the feedback favored Swift for its modern features and robust safety protocols.

Another significant advantage of Swift is its ongoing improvements in interoperability with C++. This development means Ladybird can adopt Swift gradually, without extensive rewrites, easing the transition and reducing potential integration issues.

Now, I’m sure you associate Swift with app development for Apple devices, where it’s been the go-to technology. But recently, that’s started to change.

What I mean is despite its strong associations with Apple, Swift has been making strides towards independence. It has been reorganized under a separate GitHub organization, distancing itself from Apple-specific projects.

This shift, coupled with better support for non-Apple platforms and diverse development environments, positions Swift as a more versatile and broadly applicable programming language.

Looking ahead, Ladybird plans to implement Swift once version 6 exits beta this fall. The upcoming release promises compatibility with the latest versions of Clang, essential for integrating Swift with Ladybird’s existing C++ code.

It’s worth noting that no browser engine has yet been developed using Swift, making this project particularly challenging. As things are still in the early planning stages, we shouldn’t expect to see any initial versions of the Ladybird browser this year.

A more realistic timeline suggests an early preview release could happen in 2025, though the developers have not yet committed to specific dates.

For more information, refer to Kling’s post on X.

Bobby Borisov Bobby Borisov

Bobby, an editor-in-chief at Linuxiac, is a Linux professional with over 20 years of experience. With a strong focus on Linux and open-source software, he has worked as a Senior Linux System Administrator, Software Developer, and DevOps Engineer for small and large multinational companies.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

For anyone who knows more about this, how does it compare to Servo? https://servo.org/

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Servo barely works right now. Ladybird somewhat works. Neither are ready for daily use.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

servo is a lot further along because they're not bothering with javascript and are just using spidermonkey. see WPT: https://staging.wpt.fyi/results/?product=servo&product=ladybird

[–] MigratingtoLemmy 12 points 2 months ago

WTF?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

That page freezes my firefox and uses a lot cpu power

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Rust would have been good in the long term but it'd take a long time to get to release.

Swift mates sense for rapid deployment.

Go would have been my choice concurrency would maybe help with lots of tabs

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Tabs are typically spun into separate processes for sandboxing reasons anyway

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Oh, programming language. My brain was stuck trying to figure out if Swift is related to Swiss.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I not entirely sure but from what I can remember Andreas Kling is seen using Mac-os in a Ladybird update video so it could be possible that it is his main operating system. Take this with a grain of salt.

[–] warmaster 1 points 2 months ago

Another Chromium incoming?

[–] Asudox 2 points 2 months ago

I do wonder: why not rust? It would have been amazing. A fast language on par with C++ that also is memory safe. But Swift? You gotta be kidding me...

[–] amzd -3 points 2 months ago

Swift is a fantastic language and with c++ interop out of the box it’s the obvious choice.

[+] [email protected] -27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

I would have preferred Rust, a language created by Mozilla instead of one with ties to Apple, but I'm not dev so I can't really judge. What are your thoughts?

I don't know anything about Swift, but people like to ignore the fact, that Rust is not entirely free, as it fails to exercise freedom 3.
tl;dr: Rust Foundation don't want you to apply modifications to their language without "explicit approval".
And you are also limited to share modified versions of their software.

(If someone can imply, that Python and Perl have similiar restriction — they are not the same, because both of their trademarks protect usage of software against fraud, but you can freely patch and modify it.)

For me personally, seeing LadyBird not choosing Rust as their main language is very promising. Rust software is everywhere now and this is concerning.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've read through your links. They don't have much to do with the codebase itself, but with protecting the trademarks.

From what I read, you're free to change whatever you want. You just can't go around using their trademarked names for your modified version.

[+] [email protected] -16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If I wanna modify and redistribute their language and use Rust or Cargo in the name I should not have to ask for an explicit permission, this is the freedom 3 problem.

This is also why I gave Python and Perl examples. I can modify both Python and Perl, calling them the same way, but I can not do the same thing with Rust.

I'll leave their trademarks comparsion under the spoiler for those, who interested.

Spoiler

Rust:

Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language, compiler, or the Cargo package manager with modifications other than those permitted above and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written permission from the Rust Foundation.

And Python:

Use of the word "Python" when redistributing the Python programming language as part of a freely distributed application -- Allowed. If the standard version of the Python programming language is modified, this should be clearly indicated. For commercial distributions, contact the PSF for permission if your use is not covered by the nominative use rules described in the section "Uses that Never Require Approval" above.

Let's also look at Perl:

People sometimes ask if TPF's use of an onion in the Perl logo means that independent projects that use or relate to Perl need TPF's permission to use an onion of their own design in connection with their project. The answer is "not necessarily" as long as no likelihood of confusion is created. One of the fundamental legal bases for trademark protection is to make sure that the public can depend on a mark as an accurate indicator of a particular source or relationship, and one way of defining trademark infringement is to say that the infringing mark creates a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion is determined based not only on making a comparison of the marks side-by-side, but also on making a comparison of the contexts in which they are actually used. Thus, it's easy to imagine independent onions that would be fine, and independent onions that might not be.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Please read this and try again.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#packaging

Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I don't exactly think it's particularly burdensome to have to rename your fork so that people don't confuse it with the software you forked from. Without this restriction, FOSS projects would have absolutely zero recourse against bad actors. A non-FOSS competitor could just waltz in, fork their code and turn it into absolute hot garbage, convincing enough people that it's the original project to make it all worth their while.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Please read this and try again.

Try again what? This is a debatable topic. I can simply refer to this line:

As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable;

And point out, that rebranding a whole programming language is not a piece of cake. So this is burdensome and hence is the issue for freedom.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Dude, if you're being obtuse on purpose because you have an ax to grind against Rust, try a different approach. You're not getting anywhere, clearly by the fact that no one agrees with you.

If you don't like that Rust has a restricted trademark, then call that out instead of trying to label the software and it's license as non-free. It's literally called out in my source that name restrictions ipso facto does not violate freedom 3.

But if you genuinely believe that the implementation of the Rust language and it's trademark is burdensome to create a fork, and you want people to believe you, then you gotta bring receipts. Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it "effectively hampers you from releasing your changes". It being "not a piece of cake" doesn't cut it.

Hint: Google Rust forks since their existence also undermines your claim.

Good luck.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

As an outsider with no skin in anyone's game, I find it a bit disingenuous to say that one person's interpretation of subjective terms is somehow less "correct" than anyone else's.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it "effectively hampers you from releasing your changes". It being "not a piece of cake" doesn't cut it.

The easiest example is that you'll have to adapt all Rust-dependant applications to the Rust fork, 'cause it is a programming language.

But still, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that Rust is a bad language or something. I'm just trying to point out on the problem, that was adressed to Rust Foundation before.

Good luck to you too.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago

That... is not a restriction on freedom 3. You could complain about your inability to use the rust name for anything you want but that is not the same thing as your ability to distribute modified versions of the software. It is also fairly standard practice for foss software to restrict the use of such trademarks. For example, Gnome does pretty much the same thin. FreeBSD as well. Libre Office also has similar restrictions, although they are defined more nebulously. It is not clear to me what usages are allowed with the Linux trademark but they certainly do restrict who can use it and for what and you must get permission before using it. See also, about trademarks in FOSS: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d96e1bf-bced-48f7-b5b4-ee561e7a9348

The software is free. The trademarks are not. The four freedoms are about the software and not about trademarks. You could fork Rust and call it Corrosion, just like people have forked Firefox and called it Waterfox.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Its also terrible when it comes to security, specifically crates

[–] Asudox 1 points 2 months ago

There's a reason why software is being made with Rust now. It has the speed of C++ (sometimes faster), has a nice syntax, is memory safe by default, has the best compiler error messages and also the book is very good. I learnt entirely by the book and it's very good at explaining things.