5 ms·
Super glad to hear this -- I created a small chrome extension a while ago and found it a joy to code (very easy, with a distinct lack of surprises), and when I
by hardwaresofton 11y ago
Super glad to hear this -- I created a small chrome extension a while ago and found it a joy to code (very easy, with a distinct lack of surprises), and when I looked into creating a similar Firefox extension, the idea of learning XUL was enough to shut down the idea of a port very very quickly.
Maybe I'm just lazy, but I was very surprised to find that Firefox would create such a technology when more "open web friendly" solutions were possible. I'm sure it's just that XUL is a vestige of a time when the web was still young, but I am going to wait until Web Extensions are released before I attempt to write any extensions for Firefox.
Are there any reasons to keep XUL around (other than lack of apps that were written with it)? It doesn't seem like there are any unique features that couldn't be reproduced using something like chrome's model...
- kbrosnan 11y agoXUL will be around for a while. Porting the browser UI to HTML is not trivial. There is a proof of concept on github but it is just that. The performance tuning that has been done over the years for XUL desktop applications is not matched by similar designs in HTML. That and extension compatibility are the current reasons to keep XUL around in the short and medium term.