> There is a chicken and egg problem here - if you make it harder to develop, build and ship non trivial extensions to end users then only a tiny fraction of us

> There is a chicken and egg problem here - if you make it harder to develop, build and ship non trivial extensions to end users then only a tiny fraction of users will use them. This is a really good point. > what is an acceptable grace period for coming up with an equivalent replacement when you take an API away? I really don't know. I am frustrated with the current state of extensions in Firefox, even as I acknowledge that the situation in Firefox is still way better than it is in browsers like Chrome or Safari, and even as I remain hopeful that the Firefox extension ecosystem could be really good. I am sympathetic to the argument that it's an engineering resources problem. But, that also makes me really nervous about the Mozilla cuts that happened recently, because now how long are we going to wait for Servo to be in a usable state, if it even ever gets to a usable state? Like you mention above, when you're forging a new trail in an underdeveloped area and making a case that users would benefit from these features if the ecosystem supported them enough and trained users to use them, you need some freedom to be flexible and experimental and to waste some resources forging that trail. And if resources are as scarce as Mozilla is claiming, then what are the features that are going to be cut first? The experimental, trailblazing ones, the weird ideas like, "shouldn't there be a section in the Firefox options where users can just live-edit the CSS to the browser?".