I use a 6 year old desktop which wasn't that great even when I built it, and a pretty terrible 8 year old laptop, and I don't have any problems with uBlock Origin's performance. I have almost every filter list enabled (except for some regional ones), which results in 153486 network and 173646 cosmetic filters total.

Same here. My take away from these replies is that I'm not missing anything by sticking with uBlock.

With uBlock origin you're at the whim of the changes Google pushes through to chrome/chromium to nerf it.

What are you talking about? uBlock Origin is not tied to Chromium, and is not controlled by Google (unlike Brave which is just a fork of Chromium).

Jesus, why does everyone these days automatically assumes that everyone else is using Chrome or Chromium? It's almost as crazy as calling Windows a "PC".

Google controls the frontend APIs uBlock origin is allowed to use, and they have pushed changes numerous times in the past (covered on HN) to intentionally nerf uBlock origin because it hurts their bottom line.

I don't understand this way of thinking. Rust isn't magically fast. You can use most languages to write both performant and lazy code.

Also just so you know, Brave isn't "written" in Rust alone, it is a big software with a lot of parts, including but not limited to a rendering engine, a JS VM and a WASM engine.

The Rust part at most (unconfirmed) would be the glue that connects them together, and I doubt that's where the bottleneck is for most browsers.

Is that's the new algorithm that made the rust rewrite x69 faster

>The new algorithm with optimised set of rules is 69x faster on average than the current engine.

https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/

I meant Brave's adblocker was written in Rust, as the context was about how Brave's adblocker differs from others.