Can you modify and resend a request in Chrome yet?
In the next version: https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/17/chrome_117_developer_...
Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
91–100 of 101 posts
Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foolish dreamers anyone that thinks Chrome being open source makes a difference in Google's Web domination masterplan. US is one country among 195, and the other 50%, which are mostly from Safari, are one of the reasons why the Web isn't yet fully assimilated as ChromeOS.
It’s foolish to think it doesn’t. Blink was a fork of WebKit. There’s nothing stopping someone from forking it either. Certainly a lot easier than reverse engineering IE bug for bug. The US is the largest economy in the planet and home to most tech companies and all browser engine makers. Calling it “one country among 195” is dodging the issue. That’s not to say that Google isn’t on a quest to conquer the Web and tha…
Sure, keep thinking that way, we all know how Brave is going to take over.
Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't how anything works. If you want a better alternative compiler, you build a new compiler. You don't build an entirely new operating system that includes a new compiler. Want a better grep? Make a better grep, not a whole new shell. Forcing everybody to make their own entire browser in order to provide an alternative devtool is ... madness? What does making a devtool have to do with making a browser? Why sho…
It is how it works. What's your suggestion for the fancy devtools API? Beg Google? Making the implementation of the web standard simpler means increasing the options available, meaning more chance of finding a devtools you appreciate and possibly modify. APIs/Standards deprecate. It is not even a question of "if" but "when". Lowering the barrier of entry is much more sustainable than engineering a whole new spec ever…
It simply isn't. Just look at how Linux works. Combining tools over agreed upon interfaces. If you want to replace one tool with another, you don't need to change every other tool and have knowledge of every other problem domain. What you're suggesting is replacing everything, which makes no sense and it's not how anybody does anything in the real world.
Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#94Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#95One of the things that FF's devtools are def. lacking is the ability to jump to a CSS variable's declaration. I keep on jumping back to Chrome just to be able to resolve that.
What, this doesn't work in FF?
Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Our collective history is too valuable for us to be breaking stuff just to make engineers’ lives easier. I'd argue that software standards make it harder for everyone to write a "history". How many people simply gave up on their own websites and outsourced their work to an entity they do not control the actions of? How much of that fancy web standard is about optional visual? What are we really getting from it? Wou…
What solution can you think of that doesn’t involve breaking any existing websites? Look, I don’t like how complex web browsers are any more than you do. But it’s the situation we’re in today.
There is none, but we should have a transition period to make a simpler web spec, entirely immutable (to ensure no future bloat).
We have no reason to indefinitely use our web.
Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is how it works. What's your suggestion for the fancy devtools API? Beg Google? Making the implementation of the web standard simpler means increasing the options available, meaning more chance of finding a devtools you appreciate and possibly modify. APIs/Standards deprecate. It is not even a question of "if" but "when". Lowering the barrier of entry is much more sustainable than engineering a whole new spec ever…
It simply isn't. Just look at how Linux works. Combining tools over agreed upon interfaces. If you want to replace one tool with another, you don't need to change every other tool and have knowledge of every other problem domain. What you're suggesting is replacing everything, which makes no sense and it's not how anybody does anything in the real world.
We are only talking about the browser here, where the few choices come from the extreme complexity of the spec.
However, I do believe the same for operating systems and application binary in general. Nobody would ever complain about X or Y operating system if writing your own was sufficiently easy.
Not saying that we can simplify operating systems the same way we can browser, but we can make it easier to start from a clean base and quickly support Windows, Linux, macOS, Android & iOS app binaries. As an example, how hard is it to interpret an android app binary? Is this complexity really necessary? Couldn't we depend on languages with more emergent behaviors to ease the implementation of VM/interpreters?
Just to be clear, I am NOT and have never said that we should all write our own browser or OS, but that simplifying them would result in more choice and no more begging from users to support X or Y features (which happen in every single standardized/monopoly situation)
> which makes no sense and it's not how anybody does anything in the real world.
In the real world you have people begging everywhere for features to be implemented in software they have no control on. Software standards have never solved any issue, they increase the barrier of entry and make users powerless.
Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s foolish to think it doesn’t. Blink was a fork of WebKit. There’s nothing stopping someone from forking it either. Certainly a lot easier than reverse engineering IE bug for bug. The US is the largest economy in the planet and home to most tech companies and all browser engine makers. Calling it “one country among 195” is dodging the issue. That’s not to say that Google isn’t on a quest to conquer the Web and tha…
Sure, keep thinking that way, we all know how Brave is going to take over.
Lovely contribution to the conversation. Thanks.
Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
What solution can you think of that doesn’t involve breaking any existing websites? Look, I don’t like how complex web browsers are any more than you do. But it’s the situation we’re in today.
There is none, but we should have a transition period to make a simpler web spec, entirely immutable (to ensure no future bloat). We have no reason to indefinitely use our web.
Okay, but “a simpler spec” is not a compelling reason to switch to or build for another one. There’s a reason no one uses Gemini.
Re: Why do people seem to prefer Chrome's devtools over Firefox's?
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is none, but we should have a transition period to make a simpler web spec, entirely immutable (to ensure no future bloat). We have no reason to indefinitely use our web.
Okay, but “a simpler spec” is not a compelling reason to switch to or build for another one. There’s a reason no one uses Gemini.
A simpler spec means more competition, which is more sustainable than 50 standardized APIs. More competition means having an easier time finding the perfect browser (or even make your own).
I do not know about Gemini but the problem with current minimal formats is that they cannot evolve without change to the spec, they lack emergence. And therefore when you want to expand on it, you need to add complexity to the spec, not your code.
One of the idea I had was to make all websites provide natural language text, without any standardization (send whatever text you want).
Which would have these benefits:
- Ease website development, your goal is to make the text as simple as possible to understand for a human.
- (also means that website won't have the luxury to send unnecessary data anymore)
- More performant.
- Literally cannot break as it does not depend on any standard. Text will remain understandable forever.
- You can have an infinite amount of browsers, some may only render the raw text, some may render the text and give you very fast tips as to how you should render it, and others dedicated to specific disabilities.
- You can have a working browser in a matter of hours. And the way you expand on it is independent from how the server operates.
- No fancy standard can appear to break this simplicity, as many people would depend on the text being unopinionated.
- Can still support anything the web currently does, but tracking without contentment will become harder. As users would have a deeper understanding of what the website actually is, its text is on plain sight.