5 ms·

Firefox broke off backwards compatibility with massive amount of extensions - without them stock FF is quite shite and unusable. Not only that, some of the feat

Firefox broke off backwards compatibility with massive amount of extensions - without them stock FF is quite shite and unusable. Not only that, some of the features of the old extensions are impossible to implement in the new extension engine.

poutrathor 8y ago
The new extension engine is from december 2015, so not really new. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/12/21/webextensions-in-firefox-45-2/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/12/21/webextensions-in-... The API is very close to Chrome, am I right ? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Porting_a_Google_Chrome_extension https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Po... Personally, I port my Chrome extension to a Firefox addons without much trouble, except for the stringent review process by a human developer which raised a lot my opinion of the firefox community.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  The new extension engine shipped to the general public as part of Firefox 57 in November 2017. While magicalbeans may be a bit hyperbolic in their criticism, as a web developer who uses all the major browsers, I am still annoyed every day by little things that are worse in Firefox since that time. It is a reasonable and valid criticism that many useful extensions were broken by the change and that a significant part of the functionality that was lost can't be reimplemented in the new system. The claims that the general reduction in functionality through loss of previous extensions would be a temporary problem and would be corrected as the new model evolved over subsequent versions have proven to be optimistic. It is also fair to say that claims of extensions being better contained and more stable in the new model have been exaggerated. I see far more problems caused by the smaller number of extensions I now use than I ever saw before, and I have done consistently ever since the change, through three more major versions of Firefox itself and several updates to most of the extensions. I appreciate the intent to make Firefox faster and more reliable and more secure. Surely no-one would argue that those aren't good things. But the fact is, a lot of stuff did get broken and hasn't been fixed, and for the class of users who valued Firefox for its customisability, it is a worse browser today than it was 9 months ago.
- dblohm7 8y ago
  > The API is very close to Chrome, am I right ? The API is a superset of Chrome's. You can do stuff with Firefox WebExtensions that you cannot do with Chrome.
Zardoz84 8y ago
> without them stock FF is quite shite and unusable Pardon ? Actually FF is better that Chrome!
- magicalbeans 8y ago
  Without extensions all web browsers are quite equally unusable. Long gone are the days of Opera presto when browsers shipped fully featured.
  - bjpbakker 8y ago
    IMO Firefox is much better without extensions than most browsers with extensions. Chrome (chromium) being the one exception I know of. Then I find Firefox better than Chrome when both run with or without extensions.
falsedan 8y ago
> some of the features of the old extensions are impossible to implement in the new extension engine I am stuck on FF 53 (and reinstalling it whenever automatic updates sneak past me) since it still has the XUL API Pentadactyl uses to receive keyboard input[0]. The new WebExtension API don't expose the same level of functionality, so it can't be simply ported to them as is. 0: https://github.com/5digits/dactyl/issues/99 https://github.com/5digits/dactyl/issues/99
- dmckeon 8y ago
  One approach to coping with quantum is to run 2 (or more) Firefox profiles, one for the old, or ESR, or pre-quantum executable; and the other for Quantum: /usr/bin/firefox53 -P esr /usr/bin/firefox -P quantum and if you want access to the same saved bookmarks, just use Firefox Sync to match them up. It won't help with Pentadactyl, but folks with other use cases may find it useful.

poutrathor 8y ago

The new extension engine is from december 2015, so not really new. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/12/21/webextensions-in-firefox-45-2/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/12/21/webextensions-in-... The API is very close to Chrome, am I right ? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Porting_a_Google_Chrome_extension https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Po... Personally, I port my Chrome extension to a Firefox addons without much trouble, except for the stringent review process by a human developer which raised a lot my opinion of the firefox community.

Silhouette 8y ago
The new extension engine shipped to the general public as part of Firefox 57 in November 2017. While magicalbeans may be a bit hyperbolic in their criticism, as a web developer who uses all the major browsers, I am still annoyed every day by little things that are worse in Firefox since that time. It is a reasonable and valid criticism that many useful extensions were broken by the change and that a significant part of the functionality that was lost can't be reimplemented in the new system. The claims that the general reduction in functionality through loss of previous extensions would be a temporary problem and would be corrected as the new model evolved over subsequent versions have proven to be optimistic. It is also fair to say that claims of extensions being better contained and more stable in the new model have been exaggerated. I see far more problems caused by the smaller number of extensions I now use than I ever saw before, and I have done consistently ever since the change, through three more major versions of Firefox itself and several updates to most of the extensions. I appreciate the intent to make Firefox faster and more reliable and more secure. Surely no-one would argue that those aren't good things. But the fact is, a lot of stuff did get broken and hasn't been fixed, and for the class of users who valued Firefox for its customisability, it is a worse browser today than it was 9 months ago.
dblohm7 8y ago
> The API is very close to Chrome, am I right ? The API is a superset of Chrome's. You can do stuff with Firefox WebExtensions that you cannot do with Chrome.

Zardoz84 8y ago

> without them stock FF is quite shite and unusable Pardon ? Actually FF is better that Chrome!

magicalbeans 8y ago
Without extensions all web browsers are quite equally unusable. Long gone are the days of Opera presto when browsers shipped fully featured.
- bjpbakker 8y ago
  IMO Firefox is much better without extensions than most browsers with extensions. Chrome (chromium) being the one exception I know of. Then I find Firefox better than Chrome when both run with or without extensions.

falsedan 8y ago

> some of the features of the old extensions are impossible to implement in the new extension engine I am stuck on FF 53 (and reinstalling it whenever automatic updates sneak past me) since it still has the XUL API Pentadactyl uses to receive keyboard input[0]. The new WebExtension API don't expose the same level of functionality, so it can't be simply ported to them as is. 0: https://github.com/5digits/dactyl/issues/99 https://github.com/5digits/dactyl/issues/99

dmckeon 8y ago
One approach to coping with quantum is to run 2 (or more) Firefox profiles, one for the old, or ESR, or pre-quantum executable; and the other for Quantum: /usr/bin/firefox53 -P esr /usr/bin/firefox -P quantum and if you want access to the same saved bookmarks, just use Firefox Sync to match them up. It won't help with Pentadactyl, but folks with other use cases may find it useful.