4 ms·
Oh, I forgot to mention in my sibling comment - extensions are frequently pinpointed as the cause of (or a contributing factor to) performance problems. Additio
by rhelmer 10y ago
Oh, I forgot to mention in my sibling comment - extensions are frequently pinpointed as the cause of (or a contributing factor to) performance problems. Additionally, many of them rely on older features in the Mozilla architecture, which makes it very hard to fix without breaking extensions that people rely on.
While there has been and continues to be significant work in this area, the Web Extensions project has been making great progress and provides a much better means to contain and control extensions, while making the development experience better:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/ https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/
This is already shipping today and many classic Firefox extensions have already switched over.
- burfog 10y agoNo, don't blame extensions. I don't run any. Here is what a modern browser is expected to handle: Open and close tabs and windows, browsing the modern web without extensions. Keep it up for weeks, having 10 to 30 windows, and an average of 10 tabs (some at 40). You have 5 to 12 gigabytes of RAM to work with, and at least a 1920x1200 screen. (maybe a 4k screen) That's it. Expectations for older hardware: run for weeks, 5 to 8 windows, average of 8 tabs (one at 30), 512 megabytes of RAM, and a 1600x1080 screen.
- amake 10y agoDid you actually read and understand his comment? > I don't run any. You don't have to. The existence of extensions creates constraints on how they evolve the browser's internals.
- rhelmer 10y agoCorrect, supporting existing extensions constrains the architecture of Firefox. Extensions themselves can also introduce performance problems of course.
- seeekr 10y agoCorrect link: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions
- rhelmer 10y agoOops, thanks!