So after a quick install, I think the problem is that Nyxt is an emacs-friendly browser that's trying to sell itself to Vim-friendly users? Most Vim keybindings are not available (":" for executing commands, "h,j,k,l", Escape, etc...)
Also, the configuration format doesn't make it particularly easy. I don't want to learn LISP so that I can set my proper keybindings. Granted, I'm not fan of the vim language itself but it's pretty easy to set config with it.
In short, the question indicates a category error. Vimium/etc are plugins that make the browser interface a little more keyboard friendly. In a sense, that's the least interesting consequence of having a browser environment that exposes its full programmability.
How many of these things are fundamental limitations of plugins? (Besides the "can start native programs," of course; though I thought one of the Vim-keybinding-plugins had an optional native component that exposed an HTTP interface to allow that.)
I could imagine an extension that's modal and allows its own plugins to be written in JS and then loaded. This doesn't seem at all to be a fundamental limitation, just "Vimium et al aren't designed this way."
Similarly, couldn't an extension use Web Workers to do the intensive processing tasks without blocking rendering, with the only on-main-JS-thread actions being bridging the Web Workers to the DOM?
I guess extensibility is much easier with CLOS methods than with... however people write extensible programs in JavaScript. Prototype hackery? But one could again port CLOS methods to JS as a library, so that's not a fundamental limitation either, IMO. (Maybe the fundamental limitation is the JIT being able to optimize them? I think a normal method cache on the GF might work, though I'm unfamiliar with how JS engines optimize indirect calls in general.)
> I could imagine an extension that's modal and allows its own plugins to be written in JS and then loaded. This doesn't seem at all to be a fundamental limitation, just "Vimium et al aren't designed this way."
Currently yes. When Chrome eventually mandates Manifest V3 extensions, they will no longer be able to run code not contained in the signed extension package.
The reason I use Vimium rather than qutebrowser is simply because the former has the standard compliment of Chromium plugins and the latter does not, or at least last time I tried it.
It's hard to live with many of those plugins. — Though I very much loathe that the plugins do not work on “special pages” which have to be navigated in an inconvenient manner.
> Though I very much loathe that the plugins do not work on “special pages” which have to be navigated in an inconvenient manner.
This is one of the worst things about the Quantum addon changes in Firefox too. Can't use my Vimium shortcuts or Gesturefy gestures on a new tab page, nor on an error page (404 etc.), not even on a plaintext web page (i.e if the mimetype is text). It's so annoying and interruptive.
The pdf viewer is one of the reasons I won't use FF. on chrome vimium-c has already solved these issues (its pdf viewer is the smoothest I've used in any application)
I suggest you first introduce the Windows version, then tell us about the differences. What's the point if the majority of users can't see the differences first-hand?
Also, the configuration format doesn't make it particularly easy. I don't want to learn LISP so that I can set my proper keybindings. Granted, I'm not fan of the vim language itself but it's pretty easy to set config with it.