For my small 2 cents here -- I am completely agree with @William Nerini. I think the folks at Firefox do not a clue about how important the dev community is to their product and I think they seem to be pursuing things that, as UI front-end developer, I have never seen "real" people require. Whereas, it does not seem all that hard -- in the context of a company with their capabilities -- to exactly re-create Firebug, and then improve it. Sorry but with 35 years of engineering in my past, I simply do not buy any other notion except that they do not understand or value the role the dev community plays in their market. I personally rely on Firebug in every project every day, especially for the DOM panel, the JSON readout on Ajax fetches and on the console. Whatever happened with the "new" firebug last year, updating a complex DOM is now so slow that to can take 3-4 seconds to update after an ajax fetch after a page load. If the console is not open when the page is refreshed, it can also take 4-5 seconds to actually show the console events embedded in scripts that have already executed. I long ago stopped using debug as it simply created more work trying to make it function. I have said before that the team Firebug is fantastic and have created a tool that is best-of-class (by far) - - as for the folks at Firefox doing the Dev Tools, I think have either never developed complex web apps with deep DOMs and lots of JS libraries or don't care.
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 8:03:20 AM UTC-4, William Nerini wrote: > > > I suggest, when you have time again you should try the built-in devtools >> again and file bugs for the things that are annoying for you. The devtools >> team obviously wants to close the gaps between Firebug and their tools. See >> bug >> 991806 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=991806>. Also, I >> have to say that I like the devtools. Their UI and features are in some >> parts not as good as Firebug, though therefore they offer much more >> features. And I am saying that as a former Firebug contributor. >> > > Sadly, most of my problems with the built-in tools are lack of features. > And that's not a bug-fix away. Especially problematic, for me, is the > poorly implemented variable watch system and lack of a real "DOM Panel". > Also the "debugger" is a mess, in general, but especially when it comes to > script navigation and (as before) watches. I had come up with a list, last > year which had about a dozen features and dozens of bugfixes/changes that > would be required to their tools, to bring them up to Firebug's level, for > me, so I see any attempts there, on my part, as, essentially, an effort > doomed to get no traction. The problem lies in that I'm doing *extremely > *intense > client-side development and Firefox's tools seem to be fundamentally geared > towards the developer who needs to work on the occasional small scripting > problem. Firebug has, for me, been a godsend. I couldn't have developed > half the tools I have for my apps without its power and flexibility. > > If Pale Moon gets updated to be based... >> > > Unfortunately, the debugger is the most important part of Firebug, for me, > so that's a no-go. Like I said, (or hinted at rather), I haven't had the > time, yet, to check it out thoroughly (in addition to my own app > dev-process, I also churn out about 2-4 WP sites for clients, per week, so > am quite busy.), but your experience is a welcome addition to my knowledge > base. Not sure is FF30 would break their goals, I suspect it might, but > just don't know. I'm going to try to go down the PaleMoon rabbit-hole next > week. :) > > Unfortunately, from my POV, it seems Mozilla has chosen to ignore the most > important of its remaining user base, developers, and just follow, IMO, a > faddish path in Firefox's development, to the detriment of its current, > fantastic and vital 3rd party tools. The Chrome plugin ecosphere, and its > code base, is one for consumers, not users, if you see my meaning. :( > > > On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 4:32:16 AM UTC-7, Sebastian Zartner wrote: >> >> On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 12:08:48 PM UTC+2, William Nerini wrote: >>> >>> I'd love to give 3.0 a try, but cannot, at the moment, or indeed for a >>> few months. Firebug is mission-critical to my current app's development >>> process and that process is on a deadline. I can't take the risk that I >>> would be forced into an inferior tool-set (and the Mozilla-provided "tools" >>> are that, in my experience) which would slow down or cripple my dev >>> process. In fact, I've currently disabled ALL updating of Firefox, so as to >>> avoid exactly that situation. :( >>> >> >> I suggest, when you have time again you should try the built-in devtools >> again and file bugs for the things that are annoying for you. The devtools >> team obviously wants to close the gaps between Firebug and their tools. See >> bug >> 991806 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=991806>. Also, I >> have to say that I like the devtools. Their UI and features are in some >> parts not as good as Firebug, though therefore they offer much more >> features. And I am saying that as a former Firebug contributor. >> >> >>> The only option I can explore, for the near-future is PaleMoon ( >>> https://www.palemoon.org/ >>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.palemoon.org%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHIAdfPZpa9Iu6saWYmNwPVILt7CQ>), >>> >>> with an older version of Firebug, as a concurrent installation, which is >>> why I am in favor of getting Firebug's latest 2.0 version compatible with >>> that fork (but understand why that is unfortunately probably not going to >>> happen). :) >>> >> >> If Pale Moon gets updated to be based on a newer version of Firefox >> (30+), you should be able to install Firebug 2.0.x on it. Though I don't >> know if the team behind Pale Moon is willing to do so. >> >> Actually I tried it out right now and was able to get it to run, though >> only the *HTML*, *CSS*, *DOM* and *Cookies* panel work. If that's enough >> for you, I can share that version here. >> >> Sebastian >> >> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 5:34:07 AM UTC-7, Sebastian Zartner >> wrote: >>> >>> I can also just speak for myself, though as Lawrance already stated, >>> Firebug will continue to exist and it will be integrated into the Firefox >>> built-in devtools. The goal is to adjust their UI to look and work like >>> Firebug. Furthermore Firebug 3 uses the Add-on SDK and is already prepared >>> for the multi-process Firefox (Electrolysis). >>> And to correct William's statement: The blog post says Add-on SDK based >>> extensions will continue to work as long as they don't access the content >>> process directly, i.e. if they are multi-process compatible. >>> >>> If you are uncertain how Firebug.next works, you can try out a Firebug 3 >>> alpha: >>> >>> https://getfirebug.com/releases/firebug/3.0/ >>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgetfirebug.com%2Freleases%2Ffirebug%2F3.0%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF8tzS4RM3N2gUbObBr4Vgg9Eu3Yg> >>> >>> (If you are using Firefox Beta, Dev Edition or Nightly, ensure you set >>> xpinstall.signatures.required to false to be able to install it.) >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 6:57:37 AM UTC+2, William Nerini wrote: >>>> >>>> These are also the concerns I have. Even with the DeveloperToolbar on >>>> Chrome I find its developer tools to be a joke. Same for Firefox's >>>> built-in >>>> tools. I'm already getting those warnings, as well, for several of the >>>> extensions I run, most importantly, PrivacyBadger. >>>> >>>> I've seen the "Firebug.next" comments, but they're obscure, to be kind, >>>> and I really need to understand whether I'm going to have to stand still, >>>> for a bit, on my browser/tools for development. >>>> >>>> I suppose PaleMoon will be my only alternative, as a regular browser >>>> user, looking for a flexible, configurable browser, but that doesn't >>>> necessarily solve my problems as a developer: I do extensive client-side >>>> app development in JavaScript (I'm writing a Virtual Tabletop for Pen and >>>> Paper RPGs at the moment, at the moment) and would be dead in the water, >>>> using FF's own tools or Chrome's, and Firebug's latest versions have >>>> issues >>>> under PaleMoon. >>>> >>>> This is why I posted here, to hopefully get some clarity on the >>>> specifics of Firebug's future and encourage the devs to work to make the >>>> latest version of Firebug (PLEASE) to work in PaleMoon. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your reply! >>>> >>>> [deleted/re-posted to correct stupid typos] >>>> >>>> On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 8:10:40 PM UTC-7, San wrote: >>>>> >>>>> They've already said here (if I understand correctly) that the future >>>>> Firebug will be built on top of Firefox's own developer tools, rather >>>>> than >>>>> being a completely independent extension. I don't know whether I'll like >>>>> the new Firebug or not, but I'm pretty sure it will continue to exist in >>>>> some form. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not so sanguine about all the other web-devel extensions I use in >>>>> Firefox, however. I find it hard to believe that all those extension >>>>> developers, almost none of whom have been paid a dime for all their hard >>>>> work, will just accept having to throw out all their code and start all >>>>> over again. I suspect that most of the power extensions for Firefox-based >>>>> devel will cease to exist, and with it my main reason for using Firefox >>>>> at >>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> Also, the Chrome extension environment, which Mozilla will apparently >>>>> be adopting (just as they've adopted Chrome's simplified interface, for >>>>> the >>>>> most part) doesn't allow an extension to get down into the guts of the >>>>> browser and make major changes. For example, look at the awkward >>>>> interface >>>>> that Chris Pederick was forced to use in Chrome for his great Web >>>>> Developer >>>>> Toolbar, compared to the much more elegant interface that the same >>>>> extension has in Firefox. I expect nasty changes like that throughout -- >>>>> in >>>>> the name of "security" Firefox will be less configurable than before -- >>>>> the >>>>> main characteristic distinguishing it from other browsers in the first >>>>> place. >>>>> >>>>> Already, FF is alerting (in both Mac and Windows) that ColorZilla is >>>>> "not verified for use in Firefox," despite its claiming to be signed (and >>>>> no response from the developer to inquiries). I think Firebug is probably >>>>> the one devel extension that I'm fairly confident *will* continue to >>>>> work -- but will it be as good, or hobbled by all Mozilla's new >>>>> restrictions? And will Firebug alone be a sufficient reason to stick >>>>> around? >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 4:43 PM, William Nerini <wne...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Given that, according to this post >>>>>> <https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/>, >>>>>> >>>>>> it appears plugins that currently rely on the Add-on SDK will stop >>>>>> functioning, as well as plugins using XUL, XBL and XPCOM. How will this >>>>>> impact Firebug? I've looked, briefly at the Firebug.next project, but >>>>>> it's >>>>>> not clear that's a response to these announced changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this time, Firebug is, literally, the *only *reason I still use >>>>>> Firefox, and is irreplaceable in my development process; no other >>>>>> browser >>>>>> had a tool remotely approaching Firebug's power and flexibility. So I'm >>>>>> hoping to get some clarity on where you folks are, given the announced >>>>>> changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Will >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Firebug" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to firebug+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to fir...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/firebug/6277c77a-934a-4fd0-8fcf-833b0dc0fd5b%40googlegroups.com >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/firebug/6277c77a-934a-4fd0-8fcf-833b0dc0fd5b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Lawrence San >>>>> Business Writing: Santhology.com >>>>> Cartoon Stories for Thoughtful People: Sanstudio.com >>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/firebug/457fb210-0e6a-4a76-98d2-c5078ba05a9f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
