3 ms·

First, see https://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/firefox-add-on-changes/ https://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/firefox-add-o... 1. these idea

by rhelmer 11y ago

First, see https://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/firefox-add-on-changes/ https://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/firefox-add-o... 1. these ideas are being announced far in advance of any actual changes 2. firefox devs (see link above) actively want to support current popular extensions, by adding to the Web Extension APIs In fact, you can participate in this discussion with Mozilla devs more directly: https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextension-api-ideas https://webextensions.uservoice.com/forums/315663-webextensi... Nobody working on Firefox wants to take away your most useful extensions, become a "clone" of Chrome (or any other browser) or otherwise has ulterior motives. The goals is really about improving performance and security and making add-ons easier to write and port between browsers.

nathanb 11y ago
Unintended consequences are still consequences. Most extensions are developed by volunteers; many of the rest are, at best, subsidized as a second job through donations or ad affiliates. These volunteers don't always have the time to fight for the APIs they need. DownThemAll has been around for a long time. I'm sure its developers are as passionate and involved as you will find anywhere in the Firefox ecosystem. But for the past couple of years, and especially recently, it has felt like Mozilla are working against extension developers rather than for them. Each developer must decide individually when the sunk cost becomes too much. This move will probably be that point for a number of developers.
- rhelmer 11y ago
  Good points, and I'll respond to the "sunk cost" bit by adding that backwards compatibility is a double-edged sword. My favorite pet example of this is MS versus Apple - the former has historically cared deeply about being backwards compatible, while the latter has gone through several hardware and software architecture changes that have required total rewrites from third-party developers. The situation with Firefox is a little trickier, staying backwards-compatible for web content has always been an important goal, but anything living inside the browser chrome does not get the same assurances. Right now extensions live somewhere between these two worlds, and we've had over a decade of experience with them so I think it's time to carve out their own space, with dependable APIs that are more stable than the internal browser APIs, but faster-moving and more privileged than the web.

by rhelmer 11y ago

nathanb 11y ago

Unintended consequences are still consequences. Most extensions are developed by volunteers; many of the rest are, at best, subsidized as a second job through donations or ad affiliates. These volunteers don't always have the time to fight for the APIs they need. DownThemAll has been around for a long time. I'm sure its developers are as passionate and involved as you will find anywhere in the Firefox ecosystem. But for the past couple of years, and especially recently, it has felt like Mozilla are working against extension developers rather than for them. Each developer must decide individually when the sunk cost becomes too much. This move will probably be that point for a number of developers.

rhelmer 11y ago
Good points, and I'll respond to the "sunk cost" bit by adding that backwards compatibility is a double-edged sword. My favorite pet example of this is MS versus Apple - the former has historically cared deeply about being backwards compatible, while the latter has gone through several hardware and software architecture changes that have required total rewrites from third-party developers. The situation with Firefox is a little trickier, staying backwards-compatible for web content has always been an important goal, but anything living inside the browser chrome does not get the same assurances. Right now extensions live somewhere between these two worlds, and we've had over a decade of experience with them so I think it's time to carve out their own space, with dependable APIs that are more stable than the internal browser APIs, but faster-moving and more privileged than the web.