John Resig: WebKit is jQuery for browser engines

Since it became known that Opera has completely switched to the WebKit engine (both in the mobile and desktop versions of its browser), a moan, a weeping and a gnashing of teeth does not subside on Twitter. Perhaps I have something to say about this, because I had similar feelings in 2008-2009 regarding Google Chrome. And now, in 2013, the Chrome / Chromium development team convincingly proved that the use of the finished WebKit engine did not lead to stagnation and lack of innovation at all. In fact, it allowed to speed up the development, spending less time on the implementation of standards. I would say that WebKit - a common framework for creating a standard-compliant part of a web browser - is almost the same as jQuery - a common framework for creating a DOM-compliant part of a web application.

Here are some of the arguments against this transition:

Moving to WebKit will stagnate

Obviously, this is not the case. KDE developers created KHTML, on the basis of which Apple created WebKit, on the basis of which Google made Chrome. It is unlikely that someone will decide to argue with the fact that Chrome / Chromium is better than Safari, and that, in turn, is better than Konqueror. The Chrome team has proven that using WebKit does not necessarily mean stagnation — it’s an open project, and you have every opportunity to move the development in the direction that you consider to be right. I see absolutely no obstacles for such a highly qualified team as Opera to do the same. They can implement many features inherent in their browser in WebKit, and it is quite possible that these innovations will then be transferred to other browsers.

This transition will result in WebKit becoming a de facto standard, along with all its bugs.

Sorry about this late. WebKit has already become the de facto standard. Djinn flew out of the bottle, and the same Opera previously introduced support for the -webkit- prefixes . As for the bugs: although WebKit is a common source code base, which is supported by many browser manufacturers, each manufacturer is free to make forks and fix any bugs, including those that have become “standard”. This is a matter of conscious choice, as is support for the -webkit- prefixes.
')
In the case of JavaScript libraries, almost everyone today uses jQuery as the standard framework. And this does not lead to stagnation, on the contrary, many interesting and popular higher level frameworks have emerged, such as Twitter Bootstrap, HTML5 Boilerplate and Backbone.js.

This will reduce the ability of Opera to influence the development of web standards.

It is not clear, and here WebKit. Anne van Kesteren ’s transfer to Mozilla is another matter. I do not know why he decided to leave Opera. Only if the reason for his departure in the transition Opera to WebKit, then yes, we can say that Opera will have less opportunity to influence the standards because of the decision to switch to WebKit.

Moving Opera to WebKit is the first step on a slippery slope. If IE and Firefox go after it, big problems are waiting for us.

Today one thing is clear: WebKit is the undisputed winner on mobile platforms. This engine is used in the absolute majority of mobile browsers, including Opera Mini / Mobile now. It's late to talk about where this slippery path will lead - we have already slipped along it to the very end. Any browser that wants to compete successfully in a mobile environment (which quickly becomes dominant) must be equal to WebKit. In a world governed by WebKit, Mozilla and IE will be under increasing pressure, forcing them to switch to this engine so as not to fall behind. Using Chrome, Google successfully proved that no decay occurs when using WebKit, and other companies can also create successful products based on it (or based on hybrid solutions, such as WebKit + IonMonkey).

The next big question: is it worth switching to the rest?

As before, for Mozilla and Microsoft it is a matter of economics and strategy. If some of the developers spend all their time on implementing the same standards as the competitors, the transition to the joint development of a single engine will allow employees to switch to something else. We all saw the example of Chrome - they used this reserve to focus on speed, as a result of which the browser performance race, which continues to this day, began, and everyone won from it.

It is important to remember that WebKit is not a monolithic lump. This is a common base of sources, on which many companies are working (although some fixes and additions remain within specific forks, unlike jQuery, where almost all changes flow into the main branch). A possible global transition to WebKit is not the end of everything. Innovation and productivity growth will surely continue.