I got what you mean, though I don't have enough time to do that myself. But Firebug's documentation <https://getfirebug.com/wiki/> is a wiki, so everyone is welcome to add a comparison page for the different tools to it.
Sebastian On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 2:46:13 AM UTC+2, San wrote: > > That's a very interesting post, Sebastian. It would be great if there were > a chart somewhere comparing the similar features in Firebug vs. the > built-in dev tools... maybe even also vs. the Chrome dev tools... with tips > as to how to "translate" between the different feature sets, if you see > what I mean. > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Sebastian Zartner <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 2:21:01 PM UTC+2, stephen taylor wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> As far as I can say, they do care about the developer community. They >> have a big team working full time on the devtools, they even have a Dev >> Edition of Firefox >> <https://www.mozilla.org/de/firefox/channel/#developer> and the team is >> asking >> users for their input >> <https://ffdevtools.uservoice.com/forums/246087-firefox-developer-tools-ideas> >> . >> If you feel, their tools are not useful enough, you should provide them >> your feedback. And by feedback I mean requesting small feature or change >> requests on UserVoice or Bugzilla. Then you'll surely better be heard than >> by telling them that their tools are crap. >> >> 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. >> >> >> I would have loved if they picked up Firebug, though they decided >> differently. And this decision has disadvantages, but also big advantages. >> >> 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. >>>> >>> >> Well, with 'bug' I actually thought of issue, i.e. meaning bug reports >> and feature requests. >> >> >>> Especially problematic, for me, is the poorly implemented variable watch >>>> system >>>> >>> >> The *Variables* side panel of the devtools offers pretty much the same >> functionality as the *Watch* side panel in Firebug with the exception >> that they cannot toggle different variable types and their UI is a bit >> different. >> >> >>> and lack of a real "DOM Panel". >>>> >>> >> The built-in tools offer at least a similar tool as a side panel. E.g. >> when you execute window inside the command line and then click on the >> output, you'll get a list of all properties defined in window. Surely by >> far not perfect. Though Firebug 3 adds the DOM panel back and there's >> already a request for adding a main panel to the devtools >> <https://ffdevtools.uservoice.com/forums/246087-firefox-developer-tools-ideas/suggestions/5895998-firebug-like-dom-panel> >> . >> >> Also the "debugger" is a mess, in general, >>>> >>> >> Just because its UI may not be as intuitive as in Firebug, I wouldn't >> call it a mess. >> >> >>> but especially when it comes to script navigation >>>> >>> >> The script navigation and search functionality inside the *Debugger* >> panel is much more powerful than in Firebug. You can search by file, search >> within files, go to a specific line, filter variables and even search for a >> function definition. Again, just the UI is not obvious enough. >> >> 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. >>>> >>> >> Could you point me at that list? >> >> 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. >>>> >>> >> With such a huge client-side project, I'm sure you can provide valuable >> feedback for the devtools team. Again, from my experience, giving >> constructive critics to the right people and cutting things down to small >> enhancement requests is the best way to get heard. >> >> >>> 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. >>>> >>> >> Great to hear that! >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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/c7864384-e7e7-4583-83a9-d4c81d8d7ed5%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/firebug/c7864384-e7e7-4583-83a9-d4c81d8d7ed5%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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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/5cffd003-5ad2-4cba-b8bb-83912d1797dc%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
