I agree with the sentiment (as a Firefox user who does not like the Chrome monopoly), but keep in mind this looks like a project purely for fun. The author owes us nothing and is nice enough to share their experiments. They may not have even noticed it only works on Chrome. We can certainly find a nice way to suggest them to specify that this is Chrome-only, maybe by sending a PR on the README file.
There's no need to be negative. You can even convey your message nicely.
Usually, people are receptive to feedback if the feedback is respectful and gentle.
I don't really see how this is being negative? Pedantic maybe, but negative? Do you expect everyone to tiptoe around and gloss over their feedback with layers of happiness?
Last year's releases (2023) were lagging behind.⏎
Only this yr's releases (2024) are in a timely fashion so far.⏎
However, being forewarned is being forearmed! ⏎
Both (Chromium/Thorium) browsers upstream releases are maintained by Google & both browsers contain various forms of spyware and/or telemetry! ⏎
MOAR:-
thorium.rocks ⏎
github.com/Alex313031/Thorium/releases ⏎
On a personal basis I prefer Firefox & Pals over Chromium & FRIENDS!!! ⏎
The last time I was used by Chromium was 7 years ago!!! ⏎
Carpe Deim!
no. am I wrong in thinking that the Chrome source code is not available? Chrome is built on top of Chromium. Chrome != Chromium. So how do you know what the difference between these products are if you can't see it?
Unlikely, Safari dev tools is bottom of the pile. I'm not sure Safari's console even supports CSS? Each time I'm forced to dip into it due to Safari bugs I get flash backs to the IE days where you had to try to infer everything.
> I'm not sure Safari's console even supports CSS?
It does, at least styling text.
And the dev tools, in my opinion, are fine. I'd rather use Firefox for debugging, but my main driver is Orion (Safari-ish with FF/Chrome extension support) and use it a lot for random websites.
Worked fine on my M1 Mac mini with Chrome 121.0.6167.184, and after updating to 122.0.6261.69 just now. Only issue I noticed was a bit of jitteriness as the frames were written to the console.
I don't think it is meaningful to enable JS but disable WebAssembly, as almost all of wasm can be translated to JS anyway, as the older Emscripten did with asm.js.
Yeah it's really mostly just a (heavily) stripped down binary JavaScript with basic arithmetic and operations to modify an ArrayBuffer. With Wasm-GC it's a bit more of a binary statically, strongly typed JavaScript. Either way, outside of static, strong typing, the binary representation and SIMD support, it's really not exposing anything fundamentally new.
WASM isn't the reason this works. This could easily be written in pure javascript. The only thing WASM gives you is significantly faster WebWorker-like background threads, but ones that are still limited to WebWorker-only APIs.
