4 ms·

Firefox never claimed to "fix the problem". The press tends to simplify things. What is true is that multiple releases addressed separate, significant problems

by azakai 14y ago

Firefox never claimed to "fix the problem". The press tends to simplify things. What is true is that multiple releases addressed separate, significant problems. It's important to remember that there is no 100% solution to a complex problem like memory usage in a large program that runs arbitrary code (the web).

drzaiusapelord 14y ago
Well, the fix is to have a simpler API that allows less rope for developers to hang themselves. This is how Chrome manages it. Firefox was built with this vision of XUL-based apps, big modifications, etc which never panned out. A lot of what needs to get done by extensions really can be done via simplified API like Chrome's.
- sciurus 14y ago
  Firefox has that simplified API in the Add-on SDK (aka Jetpack). However, they're stuck supporting all the traditiional XUL and XPCOM based extensions as well. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/tools/builder https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/tools/builder
- masklinn 14y ago
  > A lot of what needs to get done by extensions really can be done via simplified API like Chrome's. A lot of useless stuff yes, the useful stuff? Not really. Good luck building something as wide-ranging as Firebug through Chrome's API.
- azakai 14y ago
  That's not a fix, it's a different tradeoff. The important thing is you have choices and can pick the browser that makes the tradeoff you prefer.
- wtallis 14y ago
  A lot of the people still using Firefox instead of Chrome are sticking with FF exactly because they use extensions that can't be implemented on Chrome.
- jhatax 14y ago
  Please demonstrate your credentials to back your claim that "done via simplified API like Chrome's". I ask because this is certainly a false statement. Are you an extension developer? Have you ported an extension from Firefox to Chrome? Opinion is one thing; please don't misrepresent facts.
- xtracto 14y ago
  A lot, but not enough, like: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...

by azakai 14y ago

drzaiusapelord 14y ago

Well, the fix is to have a simpler API that allows less rope for developers to hang themselves. This is how Chrome manages it. Firefox was built with this vision of XUL-based apps, big modifications, etc which never panned out. A lot of what needs to get done by extensions really can be done via simplified API like Chrome's.

sciurus 14y ago
Firefox has that simplified API in the Add-on SDK (aka Jetpack). However, they're stuck supporting all the traditiional XUL and XPCOM based extensions as well. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/tools/builder https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/tools/builder
masklinn 14y ago
> A lot of what needs to get done by extensions really can be done via simplified API like Chrome's. A lot of useless stuff yes, the useful stuff? Not really. Good luck building something as wide-ranging as Firebug through Chrome's API.
azakai 14y ago
That's not a fix, it's a different tradeoff. The important thing is you have choices and can pick the browser that makes the tradeoff you prefer.
wtallis 14y ago
A lot of the people still using Firefox instead of Chrome are sticking with FF exactly because they use extensions that can't be implemented on Chrome.
jhatax 14y ago
Please demonstrate your credentials to back your claim that "done via simplified API like Chrome's". I ask because this is certainly a false statement. Are you an extension developer? Have you ported an extension from Firefox to Chrome? Opinion is one thing; please don't misrepresent facts.
xtracto 14y ago
A lot, but not enough, like: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...