3 ms·

It seems a lot of very significant extensions, important to large user bases, are going to have trouble making it to 57. What if Firefox developers were to tak

It seems a lot of very significant extensions, important to large user bases, are going to have trouble making it to 57. What if Firefox developers were to take a break -- meaning, temporarily slow down -- from the browser development itself, once 57 is stable -- and put some time into helping to port some of those extensions? (At least, where code and license allow.) I think a lot of Firefox users would appreciate this, and it would help preserve a principal feature set (via those extensions) that has caused many people to choose Firefox and to stick with it, up to this point. In other words, Mozilla, please don't kill our extensions. How about helping them make the transition? (Also a good opportunity to learn where the new API may need more work/expansion) Thanks! P.S. Yes, I've been pissed about this change, for precisely this reason. Reading in this conversation how Mozilla is working to expand the new API, I'm given a bit of hope. And thus, this idea I'm suggesting. P.P.S. Yeah, this may be an unreasonable and ugly ask. Wading into a bunch of other people's code of varying quality. (Sorry.) Nonetheless... the extensions have been a crucial part of Firefox's advantage, for many.

staktrace 9y ago
Part of the problem is that APIs that are good for extensions are by definition bad for performance (because they allow the extension to hook into important places and do a lot of things). So there is an inherent tradeoff between extension functionality and browser performance. It's easy to ask for powerful extension APIs because the ask is free. Would you still ask for it if you had to sacrifice performance? (The answer writ large, as evidenced by hordes of Chrome users, is no).
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  Yes. Because the way I use Firefox, together with extensions, is actually much more performant that e.g. stock Chrome -- or Chrome with the extensions it supports, as far as I know and understand.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Sure. Why would I want two browsers that make identical compromises? It makes choice meaningless.
  - staktrace 9y ago
    There are more tradeoffs involved in building a browser than just "powerful extensions vs browser performance". So you have a false assumption built into your question, that the two browsers in question are making identical compromises across all facets of things when that is in fact not the case. And there are more than two browsers - if you do want a browser that still supports powerful extensions at the cost of browser performance, I hear Pale Moon is a good option (I haven't used it myself, so can't comment).
syshum 9y ago
Part of the problem is Web Extensions can not and will not have the Low Level API and UI Access that XUL had, as such it does not matter how much FF Dev's slow down these extensions will never ever be ported The other problem is many of these extenstions have been in development for years, and have huge complex code bases that can not just simply be ported to Web Extensions, Dev's work on these for free in the spare time so they can not simply quit their day jobs and devote 100% of their times to solve a Problem Mozilla created for their own selfish reasons against the wishes of the User base to appease users that abandoned FF years ago Basically Mozilla is tell the current users of FireFox that we are no longer welcome, to get fucked, and begging Chrome users to come back

staktrace 9y ago

Part of the problem is that APIs that are good for extensions are by definition bad for performance (because they allow the extension to hook into important places and do a lot of things). So there is an inherent tradeoff between extension functionality and browser performance. It's easy to ask for powerful extension APIs because the ask is free. Would you still ask for it if you had to sacrifice performance? (The answer writ large, as evidenced by hordes of Chrome users, is no).

pasbesoin 9y ago
Yes. Because the way I use Firefox, together with extensions, is actually much more performant that e.g. stock Chrome -- or Chrome with the extensions it supports, as far as I know and understand.
int_19h 9y ago
Sure. Why would I want two browsers that make identical compromises? It makes choice meaningless.
- staktrace 9y ago
  There are more tradeoffs involved in building a browser than just "powerful extensions vs browser performance". So you have a false assumption built into your question, that the two browsers in question are making identical compromises across all facets of things when that is in fact not the case. And there are more than two browsers - if you do want a browser that still supports powerful extensions at the cost of browser performance, I hear Pale Moon is a good option (I haven't used it myself, so can't comment).

syshum 9y ago

Part of the problem is Web Extensions can not and will not have the Low Level API and UI Access that XUL had, as such it does not matter how much FF Dev's slow down these extensions will never ever be ported The other problem is many of these extenstions have been in development for years, and have huge complex code bases that can not just simply be ported to Web Extensions, Dev's work on these for free in the spare time so they can not simply quit their day jobs and devote 100% of their times to solve a Problem Mozilla created for their own selfish reasons against the wishes of the User base to appease users that abandoned FF years ago Basically Mozilla is tell the current users of FireFox that we are no longer welcome, to get fucked, and begging Chrome users to come back