541

JPEG XL is Dead. Long Live JPEG XL (programming.dev)

submitted 1 month ago by ludrol@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/WjCKcBw219k/m/NmOyvMCCBAAJ?pli=1

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 136 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Given these positive signals, we would welcome contributions

Poor Google doesn't have the manpower to implement it. They can only accept contributions from volunteers.

[-] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 43 points 1 month ago

Google is just a small indie company after all.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] 6nk06@sh.itjust.works 134 points 1 month ago

Given these positive signals

Those idiots waited for 4 years because they followed the hype of the moment. I'm glad I removed Google from my life.

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 month ago

This must be your first time seeing what Google support looks like

This is pretty standard unless you can get an exec’s personal attention.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] eskuero@lemmy.fromshado.ws 93 points 1 month ago

"we would welcome contributions to integrate a performant and memory-safe JPEG XL decoder in Chromium. In order to enable it by default in Chromium we would need a commitment to long-term maintenance."

yeah

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 11 points 1 month ago

I.e. the existing implementation is not usable because it's not written in rust

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Or would they demand it in Go? Or have they abandoned that?

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago

That might work but didn't think go was

as safe as rust
built for CPU intensive operations (aside from potentially concurrent tasks)

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The name of the format makes me think it's regular jpeg, but bigger. Wouldn't it be better to be smaller? 🤔

[-] Cort@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

No. They increased the max "canvas" size and increased encoding efficiency. You'd want the file size to be smaller but the file itself to be larger (and consequently more detailed)