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 tablets to start teaching themselves how to debug web applications, and deal with all of the various forms of other-ing that tend to alienate people away from starting to learn how to understand and help build the web.
I think it's actually quite important for Mozilla to assume that of course every user deserves built-in access to a high-quality suite of tools for debugging by default.
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 retention while a user would want the opposite.
As you mention, settings in the developer tools could allow a myriad of options to switch from a "user" mode to a "developer" mode. But honestly I'd understand if it happens to be easier to build two different applications, even just for keeping the "user" side code simple enough to make it easy to maintain and secure.
Then eventually bundle the two apps together if you want to keep the "tools" right next to the "viewers".
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 how to debug web applications. Hell, that's fine for most people, developers included.
But there's a lot of development happening in this space, and sometimes you need access to tools or features that aren't yet stable enough for wide release. So you download Firefox Nightly or Chrome Canary. And you flip on something in about:config or enable experimental web platform features in chrome://flags. And you're off to the races.
That's not dividing the web, and it's not giving different tools to developers versus users. It's trading stability for slightly faster access to new, shiny things.
Fundamentally condescending? You can't possibly be serious, or else you have some horrifically misaligned emotional responses.
I see no problem in principle with Mozilla releasing a version of their browser with only very basic debugging tools. I don't think they should, but I wouldn't get indignant about it.
In my mind, if you look at the sheer number of people who self-XSS themselves on Facebook and Google, that the average user shouldn't be able to trigger a JavaScript Console seems like a logical conclusion to me.
Is it condescending? Yes. Does it make the barrier to entry in programming higher? Yes, but considering that properly debugging a web application on a tablet seems to require a separate laptop connected at the same time (with admin privileges to install whatever crazy USB drivers), I'd say that barrier is already high enough that the kid can figure out how to download $DEVELOPER_FIREFOX.
If you translate your entire comment to the non-browser development arena, it seems totally nuts. Should everyone have a full development toolchain on the 12" laptop they use to check email and read the news? I have four C compilers, three versions of Python, two Fortran compilers (and a partridge in a pear tree) on my laptop for my day-to-day development activities. Should we stuff all that in a browser? That's obviously extreme, but the point is that insisting on shipping a full developer environment to normal users just serves to limit that developer environment; at some point developers are going to want some crazy stuff that's just unreasonable to force everyone to download. By all means, leave basic debugging stuff in every browser but don't limit the tools pros can use to just that.
My perspective is this: Mozilla (to my knowledge) isn't getting rid of the developer tools in the standard Firefox. Those will still be there for people who want to get into development, and while their features will seem comparatively limited, thats actually a good thing. They're getting access to a concise set of tools that isn't overwhelming, and the same set of tools that millions of people use for development every day. Then, if they want to take their development to the next level, they have a whole new set of tools that can help them do that.
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 see no harm in a browser dedicated for developers, best serving the web development purposes just as much as I don't see any harm with building mobile and desktop applications using IDEs and Simulators and then releasing them to the numerous platforms.
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.
The world that developers and users live in is quite different. And a lot of people won't think of it as 'ScaryFox', but rather as 'CoolFox' which has all of these interesting and advanced-use buttons and knobs that let you see the plumbing of the web page you are using.
Developers want a lot of stuff in their face that the average user doesn't want to deal with. I can see the value of having a 'switch to development mode' button, but having something that's from-the-ground-up built for developers sounds like potentially a much nicer tool to use.
Time will tell if it's a good move on Mozilla's part, but I'm excited for the announcement.
When I buy a TV I don't want the chip on the outside so that I can easily tweak it.
Why is there this arrogant idea in the development world that everybody has to get into programming. If a kid wants to program (great!) she can easily download the development version. Calling it scary fox is just scaremongering. If anything getting the special development version might make her feel empowered.
I dont think this is an "alternative" to using usual browsers for development and testing. This is an additional tool. There are vast number of use cases where such developer focused browser can be useful.
Mozilla has been developing a web browser that will make web development easier for web developers. They are going to be sharing it with world on November 10. Not a lot of info, but I'm excited.
I think this is a logical development. Firefox gets more and more Developer tools by default, but most users will never touch them. So it sounds logical to exclude Developer tools from the default package and instead offer an Developer version of Firefox.
Firefox is my default browser for a long time (switched briefly to Opera, but when they came with the new Chromium-version I switched back because I didn't like it) and I'm very satisfied with it. The developer tools are getting better and better, and I almost never touch Firebug anymore. Also I like Firefoxs tools more than those of Chrome, but that is a question of taste.
I think there is one thing Firefox can really make better for developers and that is addon development. I personally never developed an addon but looked briefly into it and from what I heard was that in comparison to Chrome, developing for Firefox is difficult. I hope there will be progress on this level too.
Why a different browser and not just an extension? I feel like different browsers leads to different versions of engines, languages etc. aka a lot of headaches. As a web developer, I want to see what my users see, not what "developers" see..
So I'm actually a fan of leaving dev tools installed and available in a normal user's web browser; whether it's IE, Chrome, FireFox, or whatever.
If a user is reporting some bug or issue that's difficult to reproduce, I like being able to just hit F12 _on their computer_ and diagnose and debug. Sometimes I can guide the user, sometimes I do it remotely.
Having the ability to debug software like that is phenomenal.
Apparently, WebIDE is part of Firefox proper not just nightly. You'll have to toggle a pref in about:config (devtools.webide.enabled) to make it visible in the developer menu. It's pretty cool.
First of all this is analogous to the irritating tendency of car manufacturers to "tease" models ahead of time. This may cut it for the average consumer, but here you are targeting the developers, and a straightforward, honest approach to launch would be more effective, in my view. Developers are blasé to any of the mind-tricks which marketing will dream 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.
I'm likewise pretty surprised that this made it to the top of HN. If you want straightforward, technical announcements, watch https://hacks.mozilla.org/ instead of https://blog.mozilla.org. The latter is predominantly press releases and less-technical announcements.
Not that those things are bad, they're just meant for a different audience.
If you want more moonshot-y stuff, emscripten, asm.js, rust, and servo are all pretty worthy of your attention. :)
As interesting as the concept is, I can't help but think it'll only make the already widening divide between "developers" and "ordinary users" even bigger... or maybe everyone will jump over to the "developer" version once they realise what they're missing, which would be the ideal situation.
No information there about what exactly it is, however. It could be not much more than regular Firefox with their WebIDE thing bundled and some UI changes.
It's going to lower the barrier to entry for young people who want to get into more than just the kiddie stuff. I know when I was a kid, I was smart enough for BASIC and Pascal but C++ just looked weird and complex and hard. HTML, CSS and Javascript were awesome and I jumped into that instead. Neat integrated tools are great for beginners.
What drives a divide is when you go build an entire ecosystem and hand it off to a cloistered priesthood. Then you make the toolchain so long and complex that you need 5 years before you even gain the first feeling of accomplishment.
Well, it's a fundamental issue that a lot of people miss. You can't keep arguing that everything should "just work" because those poor end users might get intimidated otherwise (which is really a codeword for dumbing it down and hiding it behind layers of nested abstraction, then serving it over a thick GUI), and then expect that everyone should learn to code.
It's a total disparity. I also completely disagree with the idea that "JavaScript is the new BASIC" and that every beginner should be introduced to web programming immediately, but it's better than nothing, I guess. Not that web application development isn't less of a clusterfuck than anything else. It's also far more prone to hype cycles and wheel reinvention.
Hold on to your hats and glasses folks! We're totally stoked to announce the coming announcement of a browser we'll be releasing shortly after that announcement! Stay tuned for the follow up announcement letting you know when we'll announce the release date! We can't wait for you to help us bug test it!
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.
Beyond ES5 Strict Mode ("use strict";), Firefox has a "javascript.options.strict" about:config pref that will log extra warnings (such as accessing undefined object properties) to the JS console. These warnings are not enabled by default because they are non-standard and can report false positives.
When developing Firefox Addons they have logging that is kind of like what you describe – doesn't break running but problematic code, but does complain. I found the result unusable. Normal development involves using libraries like jQuery, Google Analytics, or whatever other framework that sometimes acts weird, or makes seemingly odd choices for compatibility reasons, or has code that is effectively dead for everyone but IE6 but does get loaded. And since I didn't write jQuery or whatever other library, I don't care about those warnings.
It could be useful if there was a way of indicating what scripts are actually under development, and therefore only complaining about things the developer can fix.
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.
I'm still on the fence about having separate browsers for developers. It sounds nice as a concept but when I think about it more it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
For instance, when I want to debug my website I go to the dev tools within the browser I'm viewing because I know that my users are viewing the same browser (typically). Having an entirely different developer browsers makes the debugging experience less realistic. It puts you in a position where you don't truly experience what the user does but what you feel more comfortable experiencing.
I completely agree that we want to view what our users are seeing, but as a counterpoint, that isn't even necessarily possible in any mainstream browser. We still have to do the majority of our development in our primary browser of choice and then load up Chrome, Firefox, IE, Opera, etc to see what the rest of the world sees.
I think it would be a mistake to completely remove the developer tools from the non-developer version of Firefox, but I'd also be fine using a different developer-centric browser for the majority of my development understanding that there may be small differences and edge cases that need to be tested on numerous other browsers.
> Having an entirely different developer browsers makes the debugging experience less realistic. It puts you in a position where you don't truly experience what the user does but what you feel more comfortable experiencing.
I don't really agree with this part; it's going to be using the same rendering and JavaScript engine so I wouldn't expect the experience to be different at all it'll just have far better access to developer tools.
Having said that, Mozilla didn't exactly put much of any content into their blog post so I could end up being wrong.
This speaks to the general low quality of web specifications and/or inability of browser developers to create robust implementations of those specs.
In the vast majority of scenarios we don't think about using the same processor to experience the same thing a user does. (Certainly driver developers and other low level h/w people will occasionally run into h/w bugs but they're in a very niche field).
Is there a firefox plugin that lets me edit CSS in the developer tools AND lets me save the edits back to the actual CSS stylesheet on my machine? I'd love to see that functionality.
Even their etherpads/sprint sheets/team chat logs are public. Not necessarily saying the bug SHOULD be public, just thought it was intriguing. Makes me wonder what other - if any - bugs are private (excluding security ones of course).
In addition to going through Yoric, the Dev Tools team actively monitors and responds to feature requests on this UserVoice forum: https://ffdevtools.uservoice.com
If you have an idea, submit (or upvote) it there. It will get seen by the right people.
I can see where a dedicated browser for development could be a little more helpful during the 80% phase of development. My main concern however is that some of that remaining 20% is cross-platform stuff that you can't get right in a single browser.
Unless they incorporate tiled views from different rendering engines. That would be awesome.
I remember people arguing in a thread a while ago about the financial longevity and user-base sustenance of FireFox. Many were arguing that FireFox needed something fresh and different and also needed to identify their target audience.
When Mozilla releases this, which is at least remotely intriguing, many are quick to find small deleterious criticisms.
The fact of the matter is that they are not removing the earlier dev-tools and nobody is forcing anybody to migrate to it. They are just trying to make another tool to help people. Honestly, if you put these arguments in any other context, either software or real life, they sound absolutely ridiculous.
This is marketing at its best. Create a browser that developers like to use so they can build Mozilla compatible products for consumers. Then more the consumers will adopt this browser as their default browser.
The developer browser also includes Firefox Tools Adaptor which supports remote device debugging of mobile browsers like Chrome on Android and Safari on iOS:
The ultimate feature for hackers is how hackable something is. That means it is easier to develop the version for hackers first, and then package a specific version for end-users. Therefore, if they do develop a hackable browser and allow everybody to innovate on it, they may well be in their way to create the next best browser.
This paradox is similar to creating a new microcomputer only for hackers (Apple I/II) which in turns allows them to develop cool stuff on it (Visicalc) which in turn makes it the standard for all users.
I like the idea of a full browser for developers, but at the some time I fear the granularity of browsers differences increases also.
Currently developers cannot stay focused on new features of web App itself but they need to check the compliant with all browsers
IMHO that's is one of the major issues why the web technology is going slow especially in the mobile environment.
I wonder if they'll remove (or at least most of it) developer tools from the main browser and try to get developers to use this version. Common criticism of Firefox these days is it feels (and in most cases is) slower and more bloated than Chrome. This move could help Mozilla make FF faster, no?
Well, the main advantage that Chrome has vs Firefox is not speed (these days, Firefox is faster than Chrome on most benchmarks I have seen), but smoothness, which is largely due to the multi-process architecture of Chrome.
Developer tools have strictly no influence on this, and the multi-process version of Firefox is currently being tested. I don't remember whether there is an ETA.
It really would be a godsend if editing your CSS in the browser could make changes to the underlying files (probably SASS these days). Difficult but would shave so much time off the make a few changes and rewrite them in an editor process that so many of us follow these days.
Considering all the "helpful" features in chrome that get in the way of development (copying the url prepends "http://", even for IPs, for example), this is an important change.
I don't like google because of privacy concerns but chrome developer tools is a bit ahead of firefox DT. I hope this new one will give me a good reasons to switch from chrome to firefox
One part of the Firefox dev tools I find useful in every-day browsing is the ability to delete a DIV (or similar) element whenever something causes a bad layout or otherwise gets in the way.
If you use a module loader that uses eval to load modules, those modules will not be shown in the Debugger's Sources in Firefox. It works fine in Chrome. This is absolutely killer for me, I can't use Firefox for development until it is fixed.
This is like a landing page for a startup - or idea. They first test the assumption that developers need/want this. If they are proven right, they will build it. In the next seven days. ;-)
Meanwhile Chromium is a perfect hybrid offering the best of both worlds and doesn't need _another_ browser 'dedicated to developers'. Mozilla is more than ever feeling the slippery slope of market share under its shoes and this feels like yet another attempt to recapture a market (web developers) which was once theirs.
Firefox's developer tools are good an improving at a fast pace. I would argue that they in most aspects have surpassed Firebug and the Chrome developer tools.
At Mozilla we know that developers are the cornerstone of the Web, that’s why we actively push standards and continue to build great tools to make it easier for you to create awesome Web content and apps.
Like canning WebSQL for spurious reasons and forcing people to use a half-baked spec like IndexedDB instead? As much as I applaud most of what Mozilla has done to further the interests of the open web it's hard to forget how profoundly they sabotaged the development of the browser as an application platform with this particular piece of political NIH grandstanding.
The way to implement WebSQL is to copy SQLite 3.1.9. That is not exactly a baked specification, that is the kind of crap companies used to pull to make unimplementable "standards" for everyone who doesn't license their code and doing that a few times over a decade would make w3c compliant browsers pretty crappy.
justcommenting|11 years ago
I think we're better off in a world where kids don't have to install ScaryFox on their tablets to start teaching themselves how to debug web applications, and deal with all of the various forms of other-ing that tend to alienate people away from starting to learn how to understand and help build the web.
I think it's actually quite important for Mozilla to assume that of course every user deserves built-in access to a high-quality suite of tools for debugging by default.
hrktb|11 years ago
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 retention while a user would want the opposite.
As you mention, settings in the developer tools could allow a myriad of options to switch from a "user" mode to a "developer" mode. But honestly I'd understand if it happens to be easier to build two different applications, even just for keeping the "user" side code simple enough to make it easy to maintain and secure.
Then eventually bundle the two apps together if you want to keep the "tools" right next to the "viewers".
callahad|11 years ago
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 how to debug web applications. Hell, that's fine for most people, developers included.
But there's a lot of development happening in this space, and sometimes you need access to tools or features that aren't yet stable enough for wide release. So you download Firefox Nightly or Chrome Canary. And you flip on something in about:config or enable experimental web platform features in chrome://flags. And you're off to the races.
That's not dividing the web, and it's not giving different tools to developers versus users. It's trading stability for slightly faster access to new, shiny things.
sjwright|11 years ago
I see no problem in principle with Mozilla releasing a version of their browser with only very basic debugging tools. I don't think they should, but I wouldn't get indignant about it.
cbhl|11 years ago
Is it condescending? Yes. Does it make the barrier to entry in programming higher? Yes, but considering that properly debugging a web application on a tablet seems to require a separate laptop connected at the same time (with admin privileges to install whatever crazy USB drivers), I'd say that barrier is already high enough that the kid can figure out how to download $DEVELOPER_FIREFOX.
StefanKarpinski|11 years ago
bendyorke|11 years ago
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.
Link-|11 years ago
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.
Taek|11 years ago
Developers want a lot of stuff in their face that the average user doesn't want to deal with. I can see the value of having a 'switch to development mode' button, but having something that's from-the-ground-up built for developers sounds like potentially a much nicer tool to use.
Time will tell if it's a good move on Mozilla's part, but I'm excited for the announcement.
ramblerman|11 years ago
Why is there this arrogant idea in the development world that everybody has to get into programming. If a kid wants to program (great!) she can easily download the development version. Calling it scary fox is just scaremongering. If anything getting the special development version might make her feel empowered.
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
jgwest|11 years ago
tn13|11 years ago
drew_r|11 years ago
jblok|11 years ago
shangxiao|11 years ago
adamman|11 years ago
cowabunga|11 years ago
http://www.zombo.com/
gpmcadam|11 years ago
Then I looked back at the comment thread and can see it has 400+ karma right now. So I suppose it worked.
a3n|11 years ago
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
lachgr|11 years ago
Firefox is my default browser for a long time (switched briefly to Opera, but when they came with the new Chromium-version I switched back because I didn't like it) and I'm very satisfied with it. The developer tools are getting better and better, and I almost never touch Firebug anymore. Also I like Firefoxs tools more than those of Chrome, but that is a question of taste.
I think there is one thing Firefox can really make better for developers and that is addon development. I personally never developed an addon but looked briefly into it and from what I heard was that in comparison to Chrome, developing for Firefox is difficult. I hope there will be progress on this level too.
tuxone|11 years ago
canuckistani|11 years ago
daigoba66|11 years ago
If a user is reporting some bug or issue that's difficult to reproduce, I like being able to just hit F12 _on their computer_ and diagnose and debug. Sometimes I can guide the user, sometimes I do it remotely.
Having the ability to debug software like that is phenomenal.
coldtea|11 years ago
And as for the new tool, since it also shares the Mozilla engine, it's as if you're using Firefox (+ some plugins) with regards to web behavior.
wcummings|11 years ago
xtrumanx|11 years ago
callahad|11 years ago
vegabook|11 years ago
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.
callahad|11 years ago
Not that those things are bad, they're just meant for a different audience.
If you want more moonshot-y stuff, emscripten, asm.js, rust, and servo are all pretty worthy of your attention. :)
userbinator|11 years ago
No information there about what exactly it is, however. It could be not much more than regular Firefox with their WebIDE thing bundled and some UI changes.
vinceguidry|11 years ago
What drives a divide is when you go build an entire ecosystem and hand it off to a cloistered priesthood. Then you make the toolchain so long and complex that you need 5 years before you even gain the first feeling of accomplishment.
vezzy-fnord|11 years ago
It's a total disparity. I also completely disagree with the idea that "JavaScript is the new BASIC" and that every beginner should be introduced to web programming immediately, but it's better than nothing, I guess. Not that web application development isn't less of a clusterfuck than anything else. It's also far more prone to hype cycles and wheel reinvention.
StevePerkins|11 years ago
It's easier to wait until a de-hyped Wikipedia entry has been written, and just read that instead.
mVChr|11 years ago
blackoil|11 years ago
cpeterso|11 years ago
ianbicking|11 years ago
It could be useful if there was a way of indicating what scripts are actually under development, and therefore only complaining about things the developer can fix.
Yoric|11 years ago
joshuacc|11 years ago
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.
jawerty|11 years ago
For instance, when I want to debug my website I go to the dev tools within the browser I'm viewing because I know that my users are viewing the same browser (typically). Having an entirely different developer browsers makes the debugging experience less realistic. It puts you in a position where you don't truly experience what the user does but what you feel more comfortable experiencing.
lojack|11 years ago
I think it would be a mistake to completely remove the developer tools from the non-developer version of Firefox, but I'd also be fine using a different developer-centric browser for the majority of my development understanding that there may be small differences and edge cases that need to be tested on numerous other browsers.
BinaryIdiot|11 years ago
I don't really agree with this part; it's going to be using the same rendering and JavaScript engine so I wouldn't expect the experience to be different at all it'll just have far better access to developer tools.
Having said that, Mozilla didn't exactly put much of any content into their blog post so I could end up being wrong.
ksk|11 years ago
In the vast majority of scenarios we don't think about using the same processor to experience the same thing a user does. (Certainly driver developers and other low level h/w people will occasionally run into h/w bugs but they're in a very niche field).
dbcooper|11 years ago
Bug 1008435 - [e10s] Port the built-in Gecko profiler to e10s https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1008435
Bug 974832 - WebGL EXT_disjoint_timer_query may now be implemented https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=974832
gmcabrita|11 years ago
[1] - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1076914
hackuser|11 years ago
maresca|11 years ago
soapdog|11 years ago
You can check this article that shows editing LESS and SASS inside the browser and saving it to the original location on your HD:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/02/live-editing-sass-and-less...
Firefox has lots of awesome devtools but people still think in terms of Firebug and haven't noticed all the new goodies.
callahad|11 years ago
Menu -> Developer -> Style Editor, edit a stylesheet (or add / import a new one), then click "save" in the left panel. Done!
More info: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Style_Editor
swalsh|11 years ago
hakanderyal|11 years ago
The idea is awesome tho, using lots of different tools which doesn't communicate/integrate with each other is a huge blow to productivity.
jonnyscholes|11 years ago
Even their etherpads/sprint sheets/team chat logs are public. Not necessarily saying the bug SHOULD be public, just thought it was intriguing. Makes me wonder what other - if any - bugs are private (excluding security ones of course).
panzi|11 years ago
Yoric|11 years ago
I'm asking because two Firefox devtools people sit in my office, so if you have feedback, I can forward it.
callahad|11 years ago
If you have an idea, submit (or upvote) it there. It will get seen by the right people.
andrewstuart2|11 years ago
Unless they incorporate tiled views from different rendering engines. That would be awesome.
giiduh|11 years ago
amelius|11 years ago
But we need markup and scripting languages dedicated to developers...
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
EpicDavi|11 years ago
When Mozilla releases this, which is at least remotely intriguing, many are quick to find small deleterious criticisms.
The fact of the matter is that they are not removing the earlier dev-tools and nobody is forcing anybody to migrate to it. They are just trying to make another tool to help people. Honestly, if you put these arguments in any other context, either software or real life, they sound absolutely ridiculous.
tiffanyricks|11 years ago
cpeterso|11 years ago
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/09/firefox-tools-adapter/
sbensu|11 years ago
This paradox is similar to creating a new microcomputer only for hackers (Apple I/II) which in turns allows them to develop cool stuff on it (Visicalc) which in turn makes it the standard for all users.
Zolomon|11 years ago
resca79|11 years ago
dombili|11 years ago
Yoric|11 years ago
Developer tools have strictly no influence on this, and the multi-process version of Firefox is currently being tested. I don't remember whether there is an ETA.
driverdan|11 years ago
andy_ppp|11 years ago
phazmatis|11 years ago
chrisseaton|11 years ago
Joyfield|11 years ago
OhHeyItsE|11 years ago
cturhan|11 years ago
EpicDavi|11 years ago
billpg|11 years ago
dzhiurgis|11 years ago
asgard1024|11 years ago
Touche|11 years ago
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
doe88|11 years ago
Yoric|11 years ago
nimbosa|11 years ago
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
stevo111|11 years ago
[deleted]
esro360|11 years ago
psykovsky|11 years ago
fdomig|11 years ago
neillyons|11 years ago
bdg|11 years ago
pearjuice|11 years ago
Dirlewanger|11 years ago
jeltz|11 years ago
soapdog|11 years ago
The DevTools team is really interested in that type of feedback...
cageface|11 years ago
Like canning WebSQL for spurious reasons and forcing people to use a half-baked spec like IndexedDB instead? As much as I applaud most of what Mozilla has done to further the interests of the open web it's hard to forget how profoundly they sabotaged the development of the browser as an application platform with this particular piece of political NIH grandstanding.
untog|11 years ago
I agree that IndexedDB is awful and WebSQL was much better, but go shout at the W3C, not Mozilla.
turingfail|11 years ago
The way to implement WebSQL is to copy SQLite 3.1.9. That is not exactly a baked specification, that is the kind of crap companies used to pull to make unimplementable "standards" for everyone who doesn't license their code and doing that a few times over a decade would make w3c compliant browsers pretty crappy.