81–90 of 206 posts
Sounds cool. Shame that Mozilla's developer tools are in some respects that are important to me still inferior to Chrome.
How so? I'm asking because two Firefox devtools people sit in my office, so if you have feedback, I can forward it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes a special kind of myopia to call a decision inexplicable, and then to link to a very explicit description of their reasons for that decision.
Refuted by almost every single comment on the post, yes.
This seems to reinforce the mindset that the web should be experienced and built using different tools for users vs. developers, and aside from thinking that's fundamentally condescending, I don't see why new tools couldn't simply be extended from FF's 'web developer' menu into a different mode of operation or even extensions. I think we're better off in a world where kids don't have to install ScaryFox on their tabl…
I'm not sure I see condescension here. Everyone does deserve access to built-in, high-quality tools. And everyone already gets that, with all major browsers. No one is taking away the built in developer tools in Firefox, Chrome, IE, Safari, or Opera. The problem is that they're always just a little bit older than the tip of the current development branch. And that's fine for folks who are starting to teach themselves…
With huge respect for the work that you and Mozilla have been doing in this and other areas, I can understand that there are practical reasons why this may make sense for Mozilla (and even developers) internally.
But at least from the announcement, it still sounds like Mozilla is other-ing celebrated 'builders' like us from everyday users and segmenting our means of accessing the 'new, shiny things' you mention.
I would like a strict mode in js and rendering engine, which shows syntax error like a compiler instead of eating them and failing later at random places. Ffat fingers and typos take disproportionate time while development.
It does something very similar to what you're suggesting, adding in static type information for JavaScript and giving you compiler errors if you mess things up.
Second, please do some moonshot stuff. Please just don't give me tweaks on javascript. Yes I know js is fine for the front end guys, but more and more, deep data guys like me are having to interact with this language which leaves a lot to be desired. While I appreciate the casual, almost refreshing functional aspects of js, the rest is clearly inferior to almost everything else (not least forcing multidimensionality into this hierarchical JSON strait jacket). Here's an idea: put python numpy native into the browser, and give us expressive power for things other than dom manipulation. Or put Haskell in there. Do something meaningful. I don't want a spit-and-polished js debugger.
Chance to shine here, Mozilla, to regain the long-lost initiative. No chrome-catchup again please.
This seems to reinforce the mindset that the web should be experienced and built using different tools for users vs. developers, and aside from thinking that's fundamentally condescending, I don't see why new tools couldn't simply be extended from FF's 'web developer' menu into a different mode of operation or even extensions. I think we're better off in a world where kids don't have to install ScaryFox on their tabl…
This isn't widening the gap between a user and a developer, since they aren't getting rid of the 'middle ground'. It's just giving the developer more breadth with a better tool.
I'm getting a bit weary of announcements that don't really announce whatever it is that they're announcing. It's easier to wait until a de-hyped Wikipedia entry has been written, and just read that instead.
This seems to reinforce the mindset that the web should be experienced and built using different tools for users vs. developers, and aside from thinking that's fundamentally condescending, I don't see why new tools couldn't simply be extended from FF's 'web developer' menu into a different mode of operation or even extensions. I think we're better off in a world where kids don't have to install ScaryFox on their tabl…
I believe this separation will lead to the possible introduction of many cutting edge implementations on the browser/engines level(s), for experimentation, before a more general deployment to the end users, which would be quite interesting imho.
Not to mention, developing new debugging tools that the end user doesn't necessarily need to have running in the background of his browser package. This would definitely alleviate the resource consumption of existing browsers and allows the developers to have a focus on the end user experience and not worry about developer specific branches.
This seems to reinforce the mindset that the web should be experienced and built using different tools for users vs. developers, and aside from thinking that's fundamentally condescending, I don't see why new tools couldn't simply be extended from FF's 'web developer' menu into a different mode of operation or even extensions. I think we're better off in a world where kids don't have to install ScaryFox on their tabl…
I understand the point, but I think there is a reality where developing and actually experiencing the product can be fundamentally different. For instance the security model for a browser should be ultra tight and protect the user from the site, but as a developer I'd want to access and modify my files directly through the inspector panel. Another example would be the use of cache, where I want the minimum possible r…
I see more value for both developers and users currently because it means that in order to keep Firefox safe (for some definition of safe), the Mozilla security team also has to keep people like us--and the functionality we use--just as safe. It also means derivatives like the Tor Browser Bundle and Iceweasel might be more likely to preserve the feature set and benefit from security team's work in relation to it.