Hacker News Reader

> Extensions used to have carte blanche to change the browser, which was a security risk …

I don't buy that. It's my browser running on my computer, it's my choice whose code I choose to run on it.

If, say, emacs or vi had this kind of handholding, neither one would be much more than a text editor.

Emacs and vi are used by programmers. Browsers are used by nearly every single person on the Internet. The threat model is completely different.

Time for a developers only Browser! Anyone wants to grab that? :)

Qutebrowser and next browser are both quite programmer-focused. They are WebKit based, however.

qutebrowser uses QtWebEngine, which is based on Chromium/Blink - I wouldn't call that WebKit anymore ;-)

I was probably wrong about next too, then. Still, they both hail from the Steve Jobs school of blurry fonts, which is all any sane person tries to avoid in a web browser ; )

Emacs or vi don't handle potentially malicious third-party code...

Sure they do. That's what extensions are.

That’s like saying everyone is at risk of bear attacks because a few people in rural areas do get attacked. Yes, extensions exist but when was the last time someone clicked on a link in an email and installed an emacs extension? That happens daily to thousands of web users because the population is so many orders of magnitude greater.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com