Chrome 112 Released With WASM Garbage Collection Trial, CSS Nesting (phoronix.com) 30
Google today promoted the Chrome 112 web browser to their stable channel on all supported platforms. Phoronix reports: Starting as an origin trial with Chrome 112 is WebAssembly (WASM) Garbage Collection support. Yes, garbage collection to allow for efficient support for high-level managed languages with WebAssembly. This trial support allows for compilers targeting WASM to integrate with a garbage collector in the host VM. Also on the WebAssembly front with today's Chrome browser update is making WebAssembly tail call support available out of the box. This adds explicit tail call and indirect tail call opcodes. This support is useful for correct/efficient implementations of languages that require tail call elimination, compilation of control constructs that can be implemented with it, and other computations being expressed as WASM functions.
Meanwhile by default in Chrome 112 is now CSS nesting support as the ability to nest CSS style rules inside other style rules for increasing modularity and maintainability of style sheets. Chrome 112 also adds support for the CSS animation-composition property. Behind a developer flag is also the background-blur feature that allows using a native platform's API for camera background segmentation. This is intended for use with web-based video conferencing applications running within the web browser to make use of native platform APIs. A full list of changes is available on the Chrome Releases blog.
Meanwhile by default in Chrome 112 is now CSS nesting support as the ability to nest CSS style rules inside other style rules for increasing modularity and maintainability of style sheets. Chrome 112 also adds support for the CSS animation-composition property. Behind a developer flag is also the background-blur feature that allows using a native platform's API for camera background segmentation. This is intended for use with web-based video conferencing applications running within the web browser to make use of native platform APIs. A full list of changes is available on the Chrome Releases blog.
Chrome shilling (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep hearing all this stuff about how Chrome is so much better at sandboxing and stuff compared to Firefox but I just don't see it. Maybe they do have "more better" stuff but if you look at the CVE vulnerabilities Chrome has a lot more "the developer was a dumbass" bugs. Despite whatever "more better" stuff they have it doesn't seem to actually make a measurable improvement of the security.
I don't know. It feels like maybe Google in underhandedly pushing this narrative for their own profit.
But it's not impossible that Firefox is less secure. I just want to see something objective that proves it.
Re: (Score:3)
It feels like maybe Google in underhandedly pushing this narrative for their own profit.
And that would be surprising - how? Google is a for-profit company. That means that they will do whatever it takes to maximize their profit - preferably within the law, but also without the law if they reckon they can get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I think you read too much into this. VPs and above are the level where decisions you are suggested would be made, and those clowns would be very lucky to ever be that close to the weeds anymore in their lives as to smell this pollen. This the just the net result of managing top-down via typical money-based incentives -- it's ham-fisted as fuck, like nuking a village to kill a nuisance pest population of ants.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox used to be terrible. No sandbox at all. Single threaded. They have massively improved it now. I don't know if it's as good as Chrome, but it's certainly very competent.
I wouldn't read much into the ratio of bugs found. Chrome, and Chromium based browsers like Edge, are much more popular than Firefox. Therefore you would expect a lot more effort to go into finding bugs in Chrome. One potential issue with Firefox is that it is used for the Tor Browser, which means it a target for government agencies,
Re: (Score:2)
Modern browsers are very complex things so it doesn't surprise me if Chrome and Firefox have CVEs. I think that plays a part in why Firefox has used Rust to reduce the risk of new vulnerabilities while it is rewriting bits of the engine to make it more performant.
Does It Self Dispose During Garbage Collection? (Score:2)
Asking for a developer.
Sounds like a nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
Nesting CSS? As if large numbers of web sites aren't horrific enough with flyouts, flyins, dropdowns, and all manner of nonsensical unnecessities.
Apparently delivering a simple, easy-to-use site which doesn't get in your way is too difficult. The solution is obviously nested CSS.
What next? Are they going to bring back the purple gorilla?
Re: (Score:2)
What next? Are they going to bring back the purple gorilla?
They already did. Just say "OK, Google." (For those that don't know: BonziBuddy [wikipedia.org] was essentially a desktop assistant with all of Google's spying built in. Minus the voice part.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sounds like a nightmare (Score:4, Interesting)
Nesting CSS can really simplify CSS by greatly reducing duplication, and encouraging styles to be more contained (so styles don't unintentionally leak onto other widgets).
A good example of it can be found here https://developer.chrome.com/a... [chrome.com]
There are a slew of technologies to make up for how bad JavaScript is, and how bad CSS is - the biggest examples being TypeScript and SCSS.
This brings one of the key features of SCSS to raw CSS. With it, people might even be able to write maintainable CSS by hand instead of having a giant toolchain.
I'd call that a pleasant dream personally.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All that crap is from idiots using retarded javascript "UI frameworks". It's why sometimes textboxes just don't work. CSS is the solution to that. You want these fuckers to learn CSS and stay the fuck away from js.
Web-fags: Just about everything that can be done those shitty, bloated, slow-ass, UI frameworks can be done faster, simpler, and more reliably with just a little CSS. Oh, and just fucking learn CSS. You don't need some stupid dumbass shit that isn't CSS that transpiles to CSS because you thin
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome: We're going to bring over a nice quality of life feature to improve maintainability of raw CSS. Letting you keep your CSS neater, smaller and reducing the need for frameworks like SCSS.
You: Argg fucker web tards just need to learn how to barkga sdf dfmkll.... incomprehensible drooling.
Somebody else: I'm going to mod this AC up.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, imagine being this forgiving when MSFT added "quality of life" features to IE. CSS nesting is just another brick in the wall protecting the browser monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not part of the standard. Its only a working draft. [w3.org]
These working drafts have not received formal review and are not endorsed W3C.
These draft notes MUST NOT be cited as W3C standards and may or may not become W3C standards.
Software MAY implement these specifications at their own risk
Other browsers, like Firefox, don't have the resources to keep up because they aren't subsidizing development with revenue from a vast advertising empire.
Re: (Score:2)
A site doesn't need to be either complex or implement stupid and completely obnoxious element changes in order to benefit from CSS nesting.
And that's before you realise that websites are not what is relevant here. Chrome is used as a rendering engine for all manner of "apps" these days that look and function like programs, are nothing like websites, and basically turn into CSS hell tying to figure out where or why some element is the way it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Lord no. Nesting CSS means you can take several explicitly defined entires and turn them into the CSS equivalent of an object, encapsulating all manner of CSS styles to apply to a style.
Before, you had to write out an entry for a class and another specifying the class and sub element as 2 css entries.
Now, you can make everything look like a single, but large and complex and actually more difficult to read, single CSS entry.
The biggest problem with this is that it will be abused. you can guarantee frameworks
Re: (Score:2)
No its not. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Behind a developer flag is also the background-blur feature that allows using a native platform's API for camera background segmentation. This is intended for use with web-based video conferencing applications..."
Its a convenient API call for advertisers to use to blur the rest of the page while their ad is running.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a minute. Are you implying that, just because they're an advertising company, Google might not be entirely forthcoming regarding why they've implemented a particular feature?
I am shocked. SHOCKED!
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't this just affect WebRTC?
Naw, never let reason interrupt a good conspiracy theory!
Re: (Score:1)
Why would a feature related to the camera have anything to do with blurring part of a webpage?
You're not making any sense. Mods, WTF are you thinking?
Re: (Score:1)
Its a convenient API call for advertisers to use to blur the rest of the page while their ad is running.
Don't be daft. Advertisers are not out there begging for functionality that ALREADY EXISTS AND IS ALREADY USED.
Not every fucking thing is out to get you.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have completely misunderstood what this is.
Websites can request access to your camera. By default in Chrome there is a request that pops up, but you can change it to not even show the request if you like.
Chrome has an experimental feature where it can blue the background of the captured image, before making it available to the Javascript running on the website. The processing overhead to do it in software is considerable. The OS can sometimes do it in hardware, perhaps with the assistance of the
Internet Exploder all over again (Score:1)
chrome!!! (Score:1)
Let's have it make lattes and clean carpets too (Score:2)
How about we go back to the model where a web browser functions as a web browser, and all of the fancy-shmancy stuff mentioned is done with office applications?
But instead let's bloat it up some more and add new stuff to make web browsing more confusing and difficult, and that takes more control away from users and the bad guys will exploit to no end.
"How many updates do you want to have to do today?"