3 ms·

> It is not specifically built on Chrome. > It happens to be developed on chrome This is contradictory.

• cjhveal 11y ago
  In fact, it isn't. From a quick perusal of the github repo[1], it seems that the react devtools can mostly stand alone, and have wrapping shells that access the Chrome and Firefox APIs when necessary. Here's the plain shell: [2]. My understanding is that the GP was trying to convey this architectural flexibility while pointing out that the Chrome shell is more mature because it is the tool of choice for most devs at Facebook. [1]: https://github.com/facebook/react-devtools/ https://github.com/facebook/react-devtools/ [2]: https://github.com/facebook/react-devtools/tree/master/shells/plain https://github.com/facebook/react-devtools/tree/master/shell...
  • argonaut 11y ago
    It is, at least the way the OP put it. I was pointing out the absurdity of saying something A isn't specifically built on B, then immediately acknowledging that A is in fact built on B. But I'm happy to hear the original statement isn't totally accurate.
    • tempestn 11y ago
      There's a difference between being "built on chrome", ie relying on the Chrome source, and simply being developed on Chrome, ie developed using Chrome. It's like someone building a website. They might use Chrome to do their development, but that doesn't mean the website is somehow built on top of Chrome.
    • zodiac 11y ago
      "built on" is not necessarily synonymous with "developed on".
• gcb0 11y ago
  he was making it straight that chrome is not some enabler of anything. it's actually still catching up.