Apologies for the quality of this post. There's so much to say and my thought processes are just running all over the place as various connections are being made. I've just read about Google's new Chrome web browser tonight, it's all over the web.
My first reaction was, "How odd!" Why would Google want to bring out a new browser? There are new browsers appearing all the time, and it would be much more in keeping with G's modus operandi to date for them to simply help out with advice, code and a bit of cash here and there, rather than to up-end the whole apple-cart like this.
Then I read the 38-page cartoon that they sent out explaining things. And my second reaction was, "Oh. My. God."
It seems obvious now that development of current browsers was either not going in the right direction for Google, or just wasn't getting there fast enough. Things are scrappy. They're fragmented. Google have big plans for the browser, and it looks like they've decided to start bringing all the strands of their work together, so that we can begin to see the shape of what's coming.
Strands? Heck, let's change metaphor. It's like when the tide starts to come in on a nice warm beach. At first all you can see is tiny rivulets of water coming from all directions and going in all directions. It's only later you realise that THE SEA is on its way and your little spot in the sun is soon going to be under six feet of water (and yes, Microsoft, it is you on that towel).
So they've made all these little moves. And they looked a bit odd and a bit disconnected. Google Apps — a bit slow, a bit underpowered, but they would be see, 'cos they're running in a browser. GWT — what's the point of a development environment that has you writing web apps like they were desktop apps? Gmail — nice example of what you can do with Ajax, was it written using GWT? Android — what browser does it use?
But now Google are bringing out Chrome, whose intent seems to be to run applications as complicated as the most complicated ones that you run natively on your operating system, and to run them just as fast (or at least, in the same ball-park). Hmm, Google Apps, they're going to be a bit snappier now, aren't they? Hmm, I can see the point of a big-iron development environment based on a typed language now! And Android, currently sporting the browser that Chrome is based on, will likely be running Chrome or a Chrome-alike in the next release (after the one that we still haven't had yet).
That's enough hot air and pontificating. The rest of this post is specific reactions to things in the cartoon, which you may not understand unless you follow the link above and read the cartoon.
They are using the Webkit code base. Not Mozilla. By my reckoning that's now about a million billion important new browsers have been built on webkit, versus ... erm ... (I can't think of any) built on the Mozilla codebase. OK, so I'm using "important" in a very particular sense: "big", that is to say, backed by an organisation (probably a commercial company) and guaranteed a large user base. (And I know that there are lots of browsers based on Mozilla, but together they must have a user base approaching, what, 10,000 people?) [Yes, other than Mozilla itself and Firefox.]
Mozilla are #?*&ed! Now the flow of money from Google to the Mozilla foundation is not charity, it's a deal whereby Mozilla preferentially funnels its searches to Google. So that can stay in place. As long as Mozilla users search on Google, Mozilla can get money out of that deal, there's no sense in Google just killing it. So Mozilla is not #?*&ed immediately then, but stand by to see it lose market share vertiginously if Chrome is as good as Google thinks it's going to be.
Stand by also to see Microsoft scramble to match Chrome in terms of features. This comes at a particularly bad time for Microsoft, with IE 8 code very likely closed to new functionality, and the release only a few months away [GOOGLE SMACKS MICROSOFT, #1]. What do MS do now? Do they stick to the original release timeframe and release it as-is, and smart when nobody notices because Google released a better browser a few months back [and that's TOMORROW folks!] and everybody's using it? Or do they pull the release and desperately try to match Chrome, feature for feature?
Omnibox. I can see this running into trouble very quickly. This business of remembering what site-based search boxes you've used, and allowing you to reuse them by typing in a site identifier and then a tab and then your search terms? Think of the controversy caused by deep linking a few years back. This is an excellent way to cut a website's search page out of the loop. So now, instead of first going to Amazon's home page and having to skim over all the stuff they've kindly prioritised for you as your eye hunts for their search box, you'll go straight to their results page. Hmm. Site publishers are going to regard this as kidnapping their search boxes, and I would be surprised if there weren't a few legal challenges to it soon.
Interesting to see the places in the cartoon where they have obviously decided to put the wind up the competition. Some of them really made me chuckle.
On page 4 they say that each tab is a separate OS process. If memory serves, Unix/Linux processes used to be lighter weight than Windows ones. Assuming that's still the case, Chrome may be a bit sprightlier and more performant on Linux than on Windows [GOOGLE SMACKS MICROSOFT, #2] — just the thing for those Linux-powered net-tops that are springing up all over the place.
On page 5 they point out that this means that the sort of badly-behaved page that used to make your entire browser crash will now only affect the one tab. This must happen to me about once a day at least: four separate browser windows open, themed for work-related stuff (several pages of documentation from assorted sites), news (Google Reader for scanning, then I open up any interesting stories in their own tabs), mail, and one for anything else; that's twenty or thirty pages all open at once, some of them regularly updating in the background. When a bad page takes down that lot it's annoying and I thank heaven for Firefox's auto-reopen feature. When the bad page is really bad, and Firefox goes down again straight away as soon as it tries to reopen it, that's when I get annoyed.
Pages 9-11 must be putting the fear of God into Microsoft right now. Google are showing off how they can push automated Chrome testing out over their famous distributed server network, testing tens of thousands of web pages per hour [GOOGLE SMACKS MICROSOFT, #3] and making sure that they cover them in order of importance, as indicated by their very own page ranking alogrithm.
Page 13 is very interesting. They mention no names, but I immediately thought of Adobe's Tamarin VM for Javascript, now donated to Apache. Were they thinking of Tamarin? Did they look at it and reject it, or was it not open source back when they decided to write one themselves? I need to look at the timescale for that more carefully. One thing: Tamarin is built for the version of Javascript that didn't make it into the new standard, and work is apparently under way at Apache to convert it for the version that did. Good luck with that. Google probably thought it was better to start from scratch [GOOGLE SMACKS ADOBE]. And if the boys that did the new Javascript VM are more or less the same ones that did the Dalvik VM for Android, then Google probably thinks it can do a damn good job on its own, and rightly so.
Interesting also that they are seem to be JIT-compiling Javascript to machine code. That's been a perilous way to go in the past, partly because of what can happen with variables. Javascript variables are untyped, but the values that they hold do have types (number, string, object, ...). Now there's nothing to stop me coding a for-next loop where the value held in some variable used inside the loop changes type on each pass through, and in the past that's either killed efforts to compile Javascript or put serious constraints on the efficiency of the resulting code (by making it have to be too general).
In this context, it's especially interesting to look at the latest release of the Google Web Toolkit (GWT). GWT you will remember lets you write your web application in Java, a heavy-duty, strongly-typed language, which GWT then "compiles" to Javascript for actual execution in the web page. The release notes for the latest version of GWT noted that this "compilation" phase effectively throws away the valuable type information, in the transformation from typed Java to untyped Javascript, and that in previous releases this negatively impacted performance. But the current release takes advantage of the fact that any Javascript variable in a web page produced by GWT is guaranteed to have come from a typed Java variable! In other words, you can guarantee that that sort of type-bending naughtiness isn't going to happen in a respectable GWT application. So you can do type inference based on the first value of a variable that you see... And then the release notes said that that had led to sundry improvements that were beyond my understanding, because all I could think of was that Javascript was still untyped.
So what's the betting that GWT-produced web applications will run especially well in Chrome, because of the good behaviour of their variables (and, no doubt, for many other reasons way above my head)?
Michael Arrington at TechCrunch says:
Make no mistake. The cute comic book and the touchy-feely talk about user experience is little more than a coat of paint on top of a monumental hatred of Microsoft.
I hope this doesn't mean that MS have got so far under Google's skin that they are letting hatred guide their actions. That would be a colossal mistake. So far, Google have been the nimble players. They are the ones who, in every case [May not be true. I have a terrible memory!], have led the way with an unexpected paradigm-shift, leaving others scrambling to catch up. Letting Microsoft-hatred guide your actions is a mistake other companies have made in the past, and it's ruined them because it hands the initiative to MS, who are not slow to capitalise on the opportunity.
Update: Dave Methvin over at Information Week points to where Google may have got some of the technology they are using to sandbox Chrome tabs.
