World: r3wp

same objection

Yep.  Spoilt by Camino tabs.

I'm not sure it's such a big deal. It eliminates the regular titlebar. 
I had no problems adapting to it.

Also, I dislike angled tabs.  Wonder how difficult it is to skin?

that's estetical issue ... FF wasn't supporting tabs on its first 
version.

FF memory management is awfull.... 150 Mo for 1 tab  just because 
i saw in the same tab 3  videos ...

same page with chrome -> 32Mo with firefox 72Mo. SHAME you can trash 
it to the can and those lazy un imaginative developers too

Chrome doesn't have enough controls over content yet......Open half 
a dozen random windows from commercial sites, and you may have multiple 
Flash ads playing in them all....That'll eat up most of  your cpu 
power just running adverts in the background.
Firefox of course has the NoFlash and AdBlock addons.

other thing which denerves me a bit is - activity indicator - there 
is no stable bottom bar. And once your page is loading, there is 
message about it popping up and down at the bottom left ....

i think you really should get your hand on a firefox1.0 and compare 
it with chrome 1.0

well at least  you can track the resource taken by the page you are 
actually browsing wich is impossible in others webbrowser you just 
know that they eat all your memory without having a clue why the 
hell they does so

i Like the  chrome top of the window ... I hate all those browsers 
where more than 30 percent of the screen is taken by bars ...

i like curbes tab that change from those boring rectangular tab

what i want is some keyboard short cuts for navigation  like switching 
frotabs to tabs going next page/prevpage openning a new tab etc...

woops the shortcuts are implemented i just didn't look at them ...

chrome is perfect and yumy

ctrl+1 tab1 ctrl+2  tab2 etc ...

I would prefer that Chrome use the system theme settings for the 
color of its title bar and tabs. I hate blue in my UI (here too).

I won't be able to use this browser regularly until it supports something 
like NoScript, but there are some great ideas here.

Read the comic. It's highly explanatory.

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I have, and was surprised at how well they have taken advantage of 
the comic book communication style. I hope this kind of thing catches 
on.

Perhaps Carl should hire a sketchartist :-)

Chrome will have more traction with normal people. FF is still geek 
driven. In that regard, IE has more to worry about. FF has to worry 
if Chrome becomes better for geeks, e.g. dev, debug, extend. 


Both could benefit from its source and how they all decide to cooperate. 
If they decide to compete with Google, it will make a lot more work 
for them, and how they spin things will be important.

The two things that FF does poorly for me are memory over time use 
and stability.

If Chrome is lighter on memory, stable, and secure, I'll be there 
in a heartbeat.

I just read some comments about Chrome, and ppl claim that new JS 
engine is in fact not interpreter or byte code, but that it translates 
to native code?

Yup, that is so.

if you read the comic, it says that it compiles js into native code.

Read the comic.

(It's a really good comic!) :-)

I want REBOL that compiles to native code!

I don't need to read more than one page of comic - strating from 
scratch = REBOL ... they are simply admitting that web failed big 
way ...

You could make a dialect that could compile to native code that would 
superficially resemble REBOL, and most non-guru REBOL code would 
likely work in that dialect. It might not be as much faster as you 
think though - a lot of REBOL is native code already (natives).

but you could tell that about any launguage, no? Every other language 
has natives too, so why do we have compliers at all?

isn't REBOL order of magnitude slower than e.g. JAVA? Not to mention 
JAVA can't match native code ...

If you read the whole comic you would realize that what they are 
proposing are relatively small but significant tweaks to what is 
out there already. Most of their code is derived from Firefox and 
Webkit - only the JavaScript VM is new, though its language is not. 
The process model has already been developed independantly by Microsoft 
for IE8. The real value this all provides is the source - the other 
OS browsers will be able to catch up with IE8 quite quickly with 
this source.

I can write REBOL code that is faster than the equivalent code in 
Java, and vice-versa. Every language has its strengths.

There was an article today on IE8's performance, which was cited 
as horrible, twice as slow as IE7, but I'm not trusting this source 
yet, as they could have been testing a debug build

All of the beta builds are debug builds, AFAIK.

About java being fast: It's speed is outweighed by its size. REBOL 
may not be extremely fast, but it's nimble enough to not let you 
notice most of the time.

I can write REBOL code that is faster than the equivalent code in 
Java
. Can you give us a short example ?

If your REBOL code is not very fast, it may be algorithmic. My REBOL 
code is rather fast, though that is because I hand-optimize and don't 
use REBOL where it isn't appropriate. I don't generally use Java 
because it is never appropriate for my work, but if it were I might 
use it. I don't use REBOL to write C code.

Anything that is native-heavy, uses parse a lot, or does structure 
manipulation can be made to be really fast in REBOL. Anything interpreter-heavy 
is likely not. If what you are doing is basic math, consider a calculator 
(or C).

Anything interpreter-heavy is likely not

 So, basically, you're saying that REBOL interpreter *is* slow. Parse 
  dialect is cool, but it's not REBOL dialect. If you make a fair 
 comparison, REBOL is orders (2-3) of magnitude slower than Java. 
 I guess that even Rebcode is slower than Java.

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=rebol&lang2=java

Doc, I have a lot of trouble coming up with a short example in Java 
- Java isn't really useful for that kind of thing. Almost any one-line 
REBOL program would be faster than the equivalent Java program. The 
REBOL interpreter is slower than JIT'ed Java code, after you factor 
out the JIT overhead. REBOL is more than DO though - it has a lot 
of high-level operations that are quite useful and fast. If I try 
to write code in REBOL using Java-style algorithms it will be slow. 
If I try to write Java code using REBOL-style techniques, I would 
have to reimplement most of REBOL first, and it would be slower.

Remember, the DO dialect is just one of many. This will be even more 
the case in R3 (in theory) as it is proposed that user-defined datatypes 
include function types. This would allow you to retrofit REBOL with 
different execution engines - including JIT'ed dialects if you like.

There is no such thing as a fair comparison between Java and REBOL 
- the closest would be to show how a program written to take advantage 
of one language's strengths would be wors when translated to the 
language of the other, and then vice-versa.

wors -> worse