Marc Andreessen backs new browser?

Netscape founder Marc Andreessen is apparently backing a new browser called "RockMelt". Details are sketchy at the moment, but rumours have it that it's a browser tailored for Facebook.

I hope the rumours are untrue.

What I am hoping for is that RockMelt will be a Web browser which is not tied to any specific sites, and that it will introduce a completely new browser engine. Writing a browser engine is a huge undertaking, but we need more of them on the market.

The larger the number of widely used browser engines is, the lower the impact of security holes in any single browser, the more expensive and time-consuming it will be for virus and malware authors to infect computers, and the higher the benefits are for writing standards-compliant Web pages.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Marc Andreessen backs new browser?

  1. Well, since they are going to integrate it with Facebook, I doubt about completely new engine… Like, it's mostly for FB users only. Not sure if they would waste so much time and energy on engine itself.

  2. What does it take to create a new Browser engine! :eyes:.Surely it's a massive undertaking just in the conceptualasation itself! :left:.

  3. Someone on favbrowser.com put it correctly:

    using completely NEW engine is a sure way of making no advanced page wrk with your browser. they are forced to stick to one of two – gecko or webkit, and due to popularity and available devtools (firebug) they probably are going to use gecko.

  4. n00body writes:That "someone" is an ignorant little rat who constantly spews out uninformed nonsense.

  5. The larger the number of widely used browser engines is…

    the even more headache have web developers.All that bugs, regressions, inconsistencies between different rendering and JavaScript engines. Hell, no new engines please! Four are enough for healthy competition!So many years of development and all browsers still can't get CSS 2.1 specs right… I say NO again!

  6. If there were several engines out there with about an equal market share, no single vendor would be able to force other browsers to emulate bugs in that browser. This means that all browser vendors would have more time to work on actual standard support, improving it a lot over today's situation.

  7. Originally posted by haavard:

    If there were several engines out there with about an equal market share, no single vendor would be able to force other browsers to emulate bugs in that browser. This means that all browser vendors would have more time to work on actual standard support, improving it a lot over today's situation

    Good point

  8. "If there were several engines out there with about an equal market share, no single vendor would be able to force other browsers to emulate bugs in that browser."Our experience is that this isn't true. All browsers will have to implement all quirks and bugs of all other browsers that existed up until about now. That's 15 years of quirks and bugs that all engines must carry. Maybe we can do less of it in the future, but there's just too much legacy content out there to ignore if you want anyone to actually use your browser.

  9. Sites would inevitably end up being standards compliant because it would be far too expensive to rely on browser-specific code to any great degree.I don't think legacy content will be a big problem. It will still be there. It's not like the content suddenly vanish if your browser lacks a quirk necessary to display it.

  10. Haavard I would agree with you when all current major browsers will pass all (OK, 99%) CSS 2.1 tests (at least). Browsers should be standard compliant before web developers can start using 100% standard compliant code, right?

  11. It will happen gradually. Browser vendors will spend less time emulating bugs in other browsers, so they will have more time to work on actual standards support.

Comments are closed.