Just yesterday I was thinking about Ladybird, and I claimed that it was a fool’s errand, for reasons I’ll explain in a bit. What I didn’t know is if Kling recognized what he was doing, and was just not taking it very seriously, or if he was way over his head and was kind of oblivious.

I enjoyed reading this interview because it makes it very clear that Kling has a lot of experience doing this, and understands that’s it’s difficult, and is doing it because he enjoys it.

The reason I don’t think Ladybird will ever really get to the point where it can render an arbitrary site perfectly, is based on my experience as a web developer. I haven’t been doing web development for very long, but there have been a couple times in the last couple of years where I’ve stumbled upon browser layout bugs where Chrome/Firefox/Safari render something different. These are normally not issues where a browser completely misses something (ie, every browser supports flexbox these days). Rather, there are edge-case bugs that appear just by combining simple web components in simple ways. Chrome and Firefox handle a table with percentage height differently. Or a margin on a child which is larger than the parent’s width. And these are bugs that have existed for years. And for every edge-case like that where Chrome and Firefox differ, there are 10 more where the behavior is unintuitive or not defined by the spec but Firefox and Chrome have standardized.

But maybe, since Ladybird doesn’t have an existing buggy implementation, they’ll be able to implement the spec properly quickly the first time. I think that’s an interesting perspective that Kling brings up in this interview.

The other thing I want to comment on is that it’s really hard to tell how much progress they’re making.

> We've taken a very vertical slice approach to adding functionality to the browser… We tend to find a webpage that we want to improve for whatever reason. Maybe it's cool to get the New York Times to render, and then we just spend a bunch of time fixing as many issues as we can for that site… And that might not be the most structured approach to it, but it has been very, very good at keeping people motivated and excited and engaged in the work

This means that Ladybird “supports” a ton of features. They support flexbox! They support grid! But pretty much all of these features are only partial implementations. Kling says in the interview they support svg, and then later explains that they’re going to have to re-write the text-rendering system to get text-on-curves working. Well, to me, “supports svg” means “we have implemented the entire svg specification.” When Kling is using it to mean “we have some portion of svg’s work. We don’t crash when we see an svg element.” I’m not saying Kling’s definition is wrong, but it’s another factor that makes it difficult to judge where the project is.

To start to wrap up this (long) comment, let me restate the four claims I’m making. (This is not the conclusion, this is the summary before the conclusion, hang on.)

* Ladybird is developed differently in two ways: vertical slices, and being implemented from scratch in modern times.

* there are people who are misled by the vertical-slices and Kling’s use of “support” to believe that Ladybird development is a lot farther along than it is.

* There are people like me who think that Ladybird will never complete with existing browser engines (we also have a hard time judging Ladybird’s progress for the reasons stated above).

* These same reasons may allow Ladybird to reach compatibility with other browsers.

I have a lot of respect for Kling, and I think it’s cool that they’ve been able to accomplish so much “for the fun of it”. As mentioned in the interview, this will have short-term positive impact even if it never matches Chrome. If it wasn’t clear from how long this was, I’m actually really enthusiastic about the project, and I’ll be looking at ways to contribute in the future.