![]() ![]() ![]() I have been seeing an upswing in people asking why (or just demanding) that Opera go back to the Presto engine which seems silly. With all this in mind, Opera believes it 'makes sense' to make the transition. Hence Opera spent a lot of time tinkering with special scripts to tweak how the browser worked for specific, unfriendly sites as well as trying to 'encourage' such site designers to provide Opera compatibility. Likewise, because only Opera employed the Presto engine, site designers had little incentive to make sure their site code worked with Presto-based Opera. When Opera was Presto-based, the support burden for that rendering engine fell totally on Opera's developers, increasing costs and diluting the design effort that could be applied elsewhere in the browser. Moreover, because Blink is shared and incorporated into multiple browser 'brands', web designers are more likely to make sure their sites work properly for Blink-based browsers. That relieves Opera's developers of much of that burden. Also, because different rendering engines act differently with a site's code at times, websites may have to include special code to assure one brand of rendering engine produces a similar screen result to a different rendering engine brand.Īn open-source rendering engine like Blink has design contributors from all over, adding their efforts toward refining it and keeping it current with web protocols, practices, and trends. Because the rendering engines are different, Opera's user interface layer has had to be rewritten to do the things Opera wanted the browser user to be able to do. Olde Opera's rendering engine was Presto New Opera's rendering engine is Blink. The user interface layer provides the settings and 'creature-comforts' that allow the user to control what he actually sees on the screen (and when, and from where). The rendering engine is what talks to the websites and renders the website's code into a screen-usable collection of data bits. I have become increasingly excited over the directions that Opera has taken with the added and improved functionality.Īt the risk of over-simplifying, a browser consists of a rendering engine and a user interface layer. I stayed with Opera 12.14, but finally made the change at Opera 24. When I first learned and tried Opera at version 15 I was concerned that Opera's core philosophy had changed, but my fears were soon alleviated when moderators and developers reassured me that Opera values had not changed. ![]() Is this referring to something in particular? It was also recently said that Opera does not wish to recreate another Presto and make the same mistakes it made with Presto. What does that mean "it makes more sense"? How did it help? I imagine this was a very difficult move on Opera's part to change to a whole new engine. Opera will contribute to the WebKit and Chromium projects, and we have already submitted our first set of patches: to improve multi-column layout. It makes more sense to have our experts working with the open source communities to further improve WebKit and Chromium, rather than developing our own rendering engine further. The way I understand it is that the engine became too unwieldy and had trouble being recognized by major websites like gmail. So way back when Opera abandoned the Presto engine for Chromium. Moderators: Please remove trolling posts that you find! ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |