4 ms·
I've developed extensions. Chrome and the WebExtensions API is by far the easiest way to do it.
by bad_user 10y ago
I've developed extensions. Chrome and the WebExtensions API is by far the easiest way to do it.
- falcolas 10y agoThey may be easier to write but they aren't as powerful. There are a number of examples of addons in sibling comments which won't exist any more because Mozilla wanted to make it "easier". Even PG has remarked in an essay that success isn't easy - the people who will really succeed are the ones who put in the effort to do the hard things.
- kibwen 10y agoEr, designing an honest-to-god specified extensions API is harder than just telling addons developers to run wild with your undocumented and unstable browser internals. Appealing to PG makes no sense here.
- falcolas 10y ago> designing an honest-to-god specified extensions API is harder Of course it's hard. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. > Appealing to PG makes no sense here. When the argument is being made that it's better to make it easier on Firefox developers at the cost of the user base, the argument made in PG's essay is pretty relevant.
- kibwen 10y ago> Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It is being done. That's what people are up in arms about. > When the argument is being made that it's better to make it easier on Firefox developers at the cost of the user base As far as I can tell, you're the only one making that argument?
- Manishearth 10y ago> Of course it's hard. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. What? kibwen is saying that that is exactly what Firefox is doing! Bear in mind that this is not just "copying Chrome's API", it's copying the base design (how the manifest works, etc), and adding new Firefox-specific APIs on top of it. The whole idea is that most of the APIs addons need will be added to firefox's webextensions API.