3 ms·
I don't know. The SASS stuff seems awesome. Though, Firebug can handle a lot of stuff that it's making out it can't. For example, the article says that you hav
by jwdunne 15y ago
I don't know. The SASS stuff seems awesome. Though, Firebug can handle a lot of stuff that it's making out it can't.
For example, the article says that you have to do a lot of tweakage with the element inspector. This isn't 100% the case and I think that paints Firebug in a less than positive light. The element inspector is a really useful tool but you're just not restricted to that.
There's a CSS tab next to the HTML tab. This presents the full stylesheets to you pretty printed, editable like you would an inspected element. I can often author a lot of CSS in this window in:
a) A much shorter space of time.
b) Less amounts than I usually would.
Why point a? When you can see the CSS changing in real-time, you don't have to constantly refresh. Yes, there are ways to reload CSS and I use them often but it's not quite live like Firebug is. The second point is pretty much for the same reason: since you're making the changes in real time you can see exactly what changes what. This makes it less likely to over-step, in which you could be writing redundant CSS.
Firebug has it's downsides, such as it's clunky way of editing with pretty printing. There's also how it assumes the formatting of your CSS. You can use it in a similar way to an editor too but this removes pretty printing. Another big thing is the ability to lose work on refresh if you're not careful.
I can indeed live with the above. I don't think there are many instances where I would like to add in extra assets. I am quite a forgetful person.
Either way, the issues with Firebug can be patched over and I'm certain can be fixed. I don't think linking additional JS and CSS can easily be rectified with this.
What could be missed is the publish feature but not exactly ideal in a fair few number of situations.
This is from somebody who has to work on a lot of static websites and restrictions insist on pure CSS and HTML.
- tghw 15y agoDon't get us wrong, we love Firebug, but it is kind of a pain to then take the changes you made, copy them out, paste them somewhere else, and then deploy it. Backfire makes that easier, which is good, but you still don't have SASS and Compass, which I find makes working with CSS much nicer. In a static environment, you can just compile the SASS to CSS before you deploy, or you can use WebPutty and have us host it for you.
- jwdunne 15y agoWebPutty is really cool, by the way. I'm currently having a play with it and it's funny but I have some suggestions: A firebug inspired element inspector may be a good thing. I think jumping straight to the line of CSS rather than the separate, filtered window would be a great idea. I'd really love that. Another thing, but less important, would be auto-complete. Either that or ways to expand ZenCSS abbreviations. This would push my productivity to the moon. Another thing I was thinking of hacking on to Firebug (when I find out how) is selector hinting. The way this would work is, when you type a selector, the available ones are given to you, much like method hints in IDEs. This would be very useful to me at least. There have been many times when I've needed to know a particular hierarchy/id name/class name and found myself having to reference elsewhere. To host CSS would be a social/pointy-haired-boss issue but I could make necessary recommendations. In any sense, I love the work that has been done. This is my more constructive feedback :)
- tghw 15y agoThanks for the suggestions! We've considered embedding Firebug Lite, since it gets you most of the inspect stuff you'd want for CSS editing. We may still add it. Autocomplete is also high on the list of features, we just ran into some problems with CodeMirror 2.