3 ms·
It is a combination of factors, it always is. At the time of XUL removal Firefox didn't have much else going for it in terms of performance and stability, such
by 0x_rs 6y ago
It is a combination of factors, it always is. At the time of XUL removal Firefox didn't have much else going for it in terms of performance and stability, such improvements came later on around the time Quantum released, at least in my experience with it. I would very often use XUL extentions for their unmatched capabilities, one of which I fondly remember was Norwell, unparalleled anywhere else. Once XULs were gone, to me, there was nothing noteworthy about Firefox compared to other alternatives, except perhaps allegedly being more "privacy friendly". I just kept going with it as I did for more than a decade by inertia, and can see why someone would drop it for else.
- The_Colonel 6y ago> At the time of XUL removal Firefox didn't have much else going for it in terms of performance and stability, such improvements came later on around the time Quantum released It was exactly Quantum release which took away XUL extensions.
- 0x_rs 6y agoAh, my memory is terribly hazy then, awful mistake that also shows my bias. Anyhow, I think it is a shame capabilities, performance and security cannot coexist yet in browsers. Wish WebExtensions would get more attention to extend their APIs, surely more powerful extentions are still a significant strong point in choosing a browser.
- sfink 6y agoQuantum was the big break, but XUL extensions were getting broken with greater and greater frequency leading up to it. So your memory is probably fine! I agree that the number and power of WebExtension hooks is critical.