I'm trying to put this as constructively as I can: Proudly dismissing Windows on the second line of your copy makes me not want to take you seriously. There's nothing wrong with not supporting certain platforms, but bragging about it makes you seem a bit snobby.<p>EDIT: And I'll grumpily admit that this also bugs me because Windows is me favorite OS and Breach looks like a thing I would actually use. I hope its just circumstance. And not some goal in itself to not support it out of some far fetched principle.
What about this doesn't also apply to Firefox? It too is open source and modular, and also written in Javascript (though combined with XUL rather than HTML, and using Gecko instead of Webkit).
OK, it's not quite the same but last week Robin Berjon wrote "Web 2024" which spoke as if from the future and he said: <i>"This is 2024. In terms of the ecosystem, not only do all browsers have large chunks implemented in JavaScript but at some point someone started a pure-JS browser from scratch. It was initially meant as a joke, but this 'Inception' browser caught the fancy of the ever-resourceful JS community and quickly grew in usability."</i> <a href="http://berjon.com/web-2024/" rel="nofollow">http://berjon.com/web-2024/</a>
This is a great idea. I've wanted to build something like this for a while, but never got around to it.<p>I think people here are missing the point. Firefox and XUL is also a JS-scriptable UI over a browser, but it's a terrible environment to work in.<p>The UI is the main thing that differentiates web browsers. Our tabbed browsers have looked the same for years now. This is going to enable all kinds of awesome experimentation and customization. I'm super excited to see where this project goes.
Is there an RSS feed for the blog?<p>Sidenote: It's a huge pet peeve of mine when people put up "blogs" without RSS feeds. How are people supposed to follow your updates?
This is a neat hack on current technologies. Reminds me of uzbl [0] in the separation of modules, each one being good at only one thing and doing it well.<p>What eventually killed uzbl [1] was the difficulties working with IPCs; I hope you overcome this and build something even greater !<p>[0] <a href="http://www.uzbl.org/readme.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.uzbl.org/readme.php</a><p>[1] <a href="http://dieter.plaetinck.be/luamail_a_mail_client_built_into_luakit.html" rel="nofollow">http://dieter.plaetinck.be/luamail_a_mail_client_built_into_...</a>
I suspect that asm.js will obliterate the existing space of web browsers soon. They are bloated dinosaurs from the last millennium. In fact, a "browser-in-browser" project along the lines of jslinux and vim.js, where the entire browser tool chain is emulated (in the browser) is possible.<p>If a browser can be shown to be a lightweight dev tool with integrated toolchain servicing CPython, C, and JavaScript, rather than a glorified porn watching device, then there is hope for civilization.<p>It is really very nice that the source code is available. I do hope that open source will eat Capitalism alive soon. Not to mention copyright law. Right now, the tech industry looks like a bunch of crackpot inventors and psychopath totalitarian wannabes.
As a newfound convert to the Conkeror browser, which basically allows you to configure everything through JS and use MozREPL to talk to your browser instance purely through JS, how is this different (notwithstanding the obvious choices in architecture and JS engines)? I mean, it seams like the minimalist JS-run browser has been around for a while (and if not JS, Uzbl did Python as mentioned below, Luakit does Lua). Granted the others do not really run up and down the JS stack, with or without a separate conf language, but I do see this as Conkeroresque.<p>Am I wrong?
This is very cool - I just figured out how to shrink the top strip to 25px from its original 45px in about 5 minutes. Very refreshing compared to modifying Firefox.
You should check out the Browser API in Firefox OS: <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Using_the_Browser_API" rel="nofollow">https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Using_the_B...</a><p>Is a similar concept since all apps on Firefox OS are built on HTML, including browsers.
Seems to be very unstable on Yosemite Beta 2. I tried loading this thread, and it the HTML view froze immediately. I then tried to load up Reddit, and it just wouldn't load.<p>It's a really cool concept, though, I look forward to seeing where it goes. It would be super cool if it became stable enough to be my main browser, because I love the customizability.
I would be very interested in seeing a tutorial for how to build a custom developer tool in this.<p>Something I've been very interested in over the last couple of years is the idea of creating once off, task specific, development and introspection tools. Breach seems like the perfect environment for that kind of thing.
I find the amount of files these JavaScript projects require astonishing. On OSX this app's application bundle contains 4046 files and 1018 directories.<p>Contrast that with Google Chrome wich has "only" 388 files and 577 directories in its application bundle. (a lot of empty directories apparently)
I would like to try this out but it crashes when I try to start it and dumps core.<p>I raised an issue here: <a href="https://github.com/breach/breach_core/issues/95" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/breach/breach_core/issues/95</a>
I like this a lot, the module handling is excellent + certainly brings another level to browser extensions<p>dunno if anyone else had this problem but I had to manually set $CHROME_DEVEL_SANDBOX on arch<p>CHROME_DEVEL_SANDBOX=`locate chrome-sandbox` ./breach
Well, I think this is extremely cool. The concept is great, the minimalist mod_strip is thoughtfully designed, and even as someone who isn't a fan of JavaScript I think it makes a lot of sense in this case.
The idea is great, but in a world where browser performance is a competition, writing a web browser in Javascript <i>might</i> not be the best.<p>The interest here is learning, and it looks like Breach is very good on this point.
Every companies can build their own browser. It's a good thing for WEB developers. The companies can limit their works internet behavior. For me, may be some day I can use this to build my own browser.
This feels quite similar to <a href="https://mozillalabs.com/en-US/chromeless/" rel="nofollow">https://mozillalabs.com/en-US/chromeless/</a><p>To bad Mozilla abandoned that project years ago!
Anybody reminded of Sencha? I don't think any UI should be coded in JS, especially one that's built for the browser. At least Sencha/Ionic et al is targeted for phonegap apps...
Absolutely love this! Great job, but I'm kind of annoyed that writing breach modules to improve my web experience threatens to derail <i>my</i> side projects.<p>PS- Spell check doesn't work... Module?
One thing that hit me was typing a URL wrong provided no feedback to me that my input might be wrong (no dns records found, or server not on https, but happens to be on http)
While I'm aware of what you're implying by "hackable," that word has horrible connotations when it comes to browsers. I would never want to describe my browser as "hackable." If I were you, I'd consider using a different adjective. Best of luck with the project!
Neat project, but the marketing's a little disingenuous. It's not "entirely written in Javascript", it's a Javascript layer on top of Chromium, an enormous codebase written in C++.