3 ms·
Strong disagree. Compared to Venkman, Firebug had the following misfeatures: - modal interface* - bloat - dubious** interface labels, like "DOM" (or whateve
by cxr 4y ago
Strong disagree. Compared to Venkman, Firebug had the following misfeatures:
- modal interface*
- bloat
- dubious** interface labels, like "DOM" (or whatever) to look at the object's property tree
- totally sucked at debugging any part of the Gecko runtime/toolkit code, or anything that wasn't a Web page (including e.g. Firebug's own code)
* This is a misfeature that every browser's built-in devtools copied, and it's completely mystifying. Thanks, Firebug, but I want the script debugger to be separate from the DOM Inspector, so I can have both on screen at the same time (and I want to be able to have multiple inspectors for multiple objects open at the same time, too, for that matter, so I don't have to keep flipping back and forth between them like I'm navigating fullscreen mobile apps and being forced to think through a straw. I don't even use multiple large displays; I use a 13" laptop screen for everything. No idea why all the proponents of large, multi-screen setups don't bristle about this to an even noisier degree.)
** Generous description; "inaccurate" (or just plain "wrong") would be accurate
- malfist 4y agoDid we use the same firebug? Why all this vitriol towards it?
- cxr 4y agoI think I just answered that. It's also a piece of software, not a person. The sort of criticism I gave (especially in response to a remark that described another piece of software as "horrendous") is imminently fair game. As for persons, I like the decisions that Hewitt made when he made DOM Inspector before going on to do Firebug. It was like UNIX pipes (incl. that you can string them together to arbitrary lengths), but with dynamic visual inspectors on each side, instead of bytestreams/text. Firebug was not that. It was one step forward, two steps back.