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 < sebastianzart...@gmail.com> 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 <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/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 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/CAMoMLKgusmSdjcd%3DSXWL%3DbZkBE_kVm%2BnCYvvKwmhYt2qE3GpKg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
