4 ms·

Is there a specific reason that projects like these seemingly often are Chrome only. I use Firefox and I feel «left out» on a near weekly basis.

rnmmrnm 3y ago
it's <200 js code lines just port it.
- hxugufjfjf 3y ago
  Yes, so one could either make the argument of why don’t projects like this «just» do that? Or the other way around.
eshnil 3y ago
FF is my primary browser too, but with the user base down to 3%, it's not exactly relevant any more.
- ncr100 3y ago
  "3 of 100 people" - I'm one of those three.
  - bjord 3y ago
    I would be willing to bet that the 3% stat doesn't hold true for HN users
- hxugufjfjf 3y ago
  Oh … my naive ass thought it was like 50/50 between Chrome and Fx :(
imadj 3y ago
Well, speaking for myself, it's just the browser I use, I don't necessarily love it but it the standard browser with the least headache. As for the extension, it doesn't depend on anything other than hackernews and the search api, so a port should be easy. Update: It's now available as a userscript, tested on Firefox with Tampermonkey
esafak 3y ago
How hard is it to create a cross-browser plug-in?
- dingledork69 3y ago
  Trivial
arek_nawo 3y ago
As a Web Extension dev, I can say that Chrome is definitely the go-to platform for developing new extensions, as you basically target most of the market this way (incl. Chrome, Edge, Brave, etc.). Any additional browser, means ofc additional dev time and testing, some of which can be really funky, like Safari. That said, from the two (the other one being Safari), Firefox is much easier to port the extension to and there's even webextension-polyfill that gets you >95% of the way there (most of the time).
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > That said, from the two (the other one being Safari), Firefox is much easier to port the extension to… Is it? Has anyone in this thread tried this? (I have not.) https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/safari_web_extensions/converting_a_web_extension_for_safari https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/saf...
  - arek_nawo 3y ago
    Yeah, I have done it twice now. Safari doesn't have as good of a support as Firefox for a lot of Web Extension API, and that's on top of various compatibility issues with Safari itself. Not to mention having to deal with Xcode to just bundle the extension into Mac app-like wrapper. To be more precise the last time I did this I had to: - Adjust cookie SameSite attribute (cookies didn't work properly otherwise) - Migrate back from MV3 to MV2 (Safari DevTools are really bad for MV3 for some reason and there were also other issues that didn't appear in MV2) - Adjust JS and CSS (some newer techniques were simply not supported in Safari) Firefox didn't have any of those issues. On top of that, there's much more resources available online than there is for Safari - though, to be fair, it's mostly because its support for WebExtensions is newer and there aren't as many extensions for Safari. But, when you do find some resources you have to verify whether they're actually on the most recent standard - Web Extensions - since Safari supported multiple over the years, that have nothing to do with WE, and are very similarly named: Safari Extensions, Safari App Extensions, Safari Web Extensions
    - 3y ago
dubeux 3y ago
There's a script available now - just installed it in FF with Greasemonkey.

rnmmrnm 3y ago

it's <200 js code lines just port it.

hxugufjfjf 3y ago
Yes, so one could either make the argument of why don’t projects like this «just» do that? Or the other way around.

eshnil 3y ago

FF is my primary browser too, but with the user base down to 3%, it's not exactly relevant any more.

ncr100 3y ago
"3 of 100 people" - I'm one of those three.
- bjord 3y ago
  I would be willing to bet that the 3% stat doesn't hold true for HN users
hxugufjfjf 3y ago
Oh … my naive ass thought it was like 50/50 between Chrome and Fx :(

imadj 3y ago

Well, speaking for myself, it's just the browser I use, I don't necessarily love it but it the standard browser with the least headache. As for the extension, it doesn't depend on anything other than hackernews and the search api, so a port should be easy. Update: It's now available as a userscript, tested on Firefox with Tampermonkey

esafak 3y ago

How hard is it to create a cross-browser plug-in?

dingledork69 3y ago
Trivial

arek_nawo 3y ago

As a Web Extension dev, I can say that Chrome is definitely the go-to platform for developing new extensions, as you basically target most of the market this way (incl. Chrome, Edge, Brave, etc.). Any additional browser, means ofc additional dev time and testing, some of which can be really funky, like Safari. That said, from the two (the other one being Safari), Firefox is much easier to port the extension to and there's even webextension-polyfill that gets you >95% of the way there (most of the time).

CharlesW 3y ago
> That said, from the two (the other one being Safari), Firefox is much easier to port the extension to… Is it? Has anyone in this thread tried this? (I have not.) https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/safari_web_extensions/converting_a_web_extension_for_safari https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/saf...
- arek_nawo 3y ago
  Yeah, I have done it twice now. Safari doesn't have as good of a support as Firefox for a lot of Web Extension API, and that's on top of various compatibility issues with Safari itself. Not to mention having to deal with Xcode to just bundle the extension into Mac app-like wrapper. To be more precise the last time I did this I had to: - Adjust cookie SameSite attribute (cookies didn't work properly otherwise) - Migrate back from MV3 to MV2 (Safari DevTools are really bad for MV3 for some reason and there were also other issues that didn't appear in MV2) - Adjust JS and CSS (some newer techniques were simply not supported in Safari) Firefox didn't have any of those issues. On top of that, there's much more resources available online than there is for Safari - though, to be fair, it's mostly because its support for WebExtensions is newer and there aren't as many extensions for Safari. But, when you do find some resources you have to verify whether they're actually on the most recent standard - Web Extensions - since Safari supported multiple over the years, that have nothing to do with WE, and are very similarly named: Safari Extensions, Safari App Extensions, Safari Web Extensions
  - 3y ago

dubeux 3y ago

There's a script available now - just installed it in FF with Greasemonkey.