5 ms·

I'm presently in the middle of an experiment to use Firefox (and its Developer Edition) as my primary browser when performing my duties as a web developer. So f

I'm presently in the middle of an experiment to use Firefox (and its Developer Edition) as my primary browser when performing my duties as a web developer. So far... It's been kind of rocky. Daily usage of the browser isn't that bad, but the developer tools are lacking compared to Chrome. A good example is the Network tab. In Chrome, I need only have the developer tools open to capture information about requests. In FF, I must not only have the tools open, but I must also be viewing the tab. Another minor annoyance is the state of add-ons. It seems that new versions of the add-ons I use regularly are several versions behind their Chrome counterparts. And have you tried to develop an add-on? Wow. The docs are kind of harsh. They could really use a guided example.

taf2 12y ago
Also the detail provided is not as informative... I was recently migrating a website and while doing this needed to modify my local DNS. To verify the site still worked on the new infrastructure before putting all traffic. So, I was able to use the network tab in Chrome to confirm that I was loading the site from the new servers and not the old servers. In the network tab in Chrome it shows you the IP address of the requested site. Very useful when loading from multiple servers as well... I couldn't find the same information when trying in Firefox.
ep103 12y ago
I assume you've already installed the web developer toolbar and firebug? FWIW, I do all my primary web development in FF, and don't have that network problem.
izolate 12y ago
One minor grievance I have with the Firefox console is the input line is all the way at the bottom. I quite like Chrome's approach of starting at the top. Firefox has a few of these irritating UX quirks that I just can't get over. Having to restart after installing an extension is another. Every time I see the request, I can't help lose a bit of respect for it.
- joshstrange 12y ago
  > One minor grievance I have with the Firefox console is the input line is all the way at the bottom. I quite like Chrome's approach of starting at the top. This is such a small thing but it drives me insane (and keeps me on Chrome, among other things). > Having to restart after installing an extension is another. Every time I see the request, I can't help lose a bit of respect for it. Yeah, I've enjoyed the last few years with not having to worry about restarting idk if I could go back...
- dblohm7 12y ago
  File a bug if you want to request devtools improvements.
- agapos 12y ago
  "Having to restart after installing an extension is another. Every time I see the request, I can't help lose a bit of respect for it." Restart-less add-ons have been around for long years, so if you see one that wants you to restart Fx, you can blame it on the addon's creator (I know there may be some edge cases where it is a must, but those are pretty rare).
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  > Firefox has a few of these irritating UX quirks that I just can't get over. Another one is not being able to use shift-home or shift-end to select to the beginning or end of a css property.
  - okbake 12y ago
    Wow, this drives me insane. I've always meant to file a bug report about this but I'm not sure if its supposed to be a feature instead. It appears to let you cycle through valid properties but I really wish it was assigned to another key.
- yborg 12y ago
  >Having to restart after installing an extension is another Because it's part of your everyday workflow to install extensions one after another, right?
cauterized 12y ago
FF's built-in developer tools are still pretty sad, but nothing quite compares to full-blown Firebug on Firefox. The only place anyone else's tools outdo it, IMO, is Chrome's profiling (Firebug's is nearly useless.)
dblohm7 12y ago
How about filing some bugs for your concerns?
- jherdman 12y ago
  That's my intention. The first step is always to ensure that you're actually dealing with bugs though, it may just be something I'm not used to.
pmontra 12y ago
You should install Firebug. It's better than the integrated dev tools in almost all areas. About writing extensions we had this on HN in September 2014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744
- jherdman 12y ago
  I'll definitely give Firebug a try. I hadn't even considered it to be honest. I thought I remembered reading a while back that it was no longer important after Mozilla decided to brew their own.
  - technojunkie 12y ago
    I feel like adding Firebug adds unneeded weight to FF now that FF's dev tools have matured so much. There's still a lot of work to catch up to Chrome, as you stated, but for the most part it's very capable and Firebug just feels like bloat and adds memory consumption that's not necessary.
    - pmontra 12y ago
      I sometimes use the dev tools but I prefer Firebug. Maybe it's only better looking but there are some real advantages. I'm on a phone now and can't make a side by side comparison. Relying on my memory won't work :-) The dev tools are faster, that's for sure but Firebug is not slow enough to switch. I'd like the two teams to merge.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  You should install Firebug. It's better than the integrated dev tools in almost all areas. Really? I uninstalled Firebug not so long ago, having concluded that it offered little added value any more, while measurably, repeatably, and dramatically reducing Firefox's performance. Has either or both of these things changed in the last few months?
  - cauterized 12y ago
cookiecaper 12y ago
As I understand it, add-ons are updated more slowly than their Chrome counterparts because Mozilla actually reviews the code of each add-on offered from their store to attempt to validate it's not doing anything naughty. Google and Apple make these types of promises, but really they approve things after a cursory glance and then respond to any user complaints that may come in.
- wasyl 12y ago
  On the other hand I read that the review process is quite slow (as in painfully slow)
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    Yeah, this is the tradeoff. It takes a long time to audit code. Supposedly Mozilla is doing this every time an add-on update is sent for review. Google and Apple just pretend like they do, and I guess Mozilla didn't get the memo that you're supposed to pretend.
- sogen 12y ago
  Yes, FF/Mozilla trying to be perfect delay lots of things. They should ship fast, fix later (and not be perfectionists).
- piyush_soni 12y ago
  Which is really what Firefox needs to do as well. This is one of my main pain points as a Firefox Extension developer and a turn off for most I know. Rather than keeping people wait for 15 or so days for approving their add-ons, they should rather improve their automatic code checking tools as much as they can, and stop at that (and have a better extension flagging system). The problem with current system is more if our add-ons are based on a specific website like mine. When that website changes, it breaks my add-on and I upload the fix immediately. But Firefox takes days to approve it, making my add-on look bad in public.

taf2 12y ago

Also the detail provided is not as informative... I was recently migrating a website and while doing this needed to modify my local DNS. To verify the site still worked on the new infrastructure before putting all traffic. So, I was able to use the network tab in Chrome to confirm that I was loading the site from the new servers and not the old servers. In the network tab in Chrome it shows you the IP address of the requested site. Very useful when loading from multiple servers as well... I couldn't find the same information when trying in Firefox.

ep103 12y ago

I assume you've already installed the web developer toolbar and firebug? FWIW, I do all my primary web development in FF, and don't have that network problem.

izolate 12y ago

One minor grievance I have with the Firefox console is the input line is all the way at the bottom. I quite like Chrome's approach of starting at the top. Firefox has a few of these irritating UX quirks that I just can't get over. Having to restart after installing an extension is another. Every time I see the request, I can't help lose a bit of respect for it.

joshstrange 12y ago
> One minor grievance I have with the Firefox console is the input line is all the way at the bottom. I quite like Chrome's approach of starting at the top. This is such a small thing but it drives me insane (and keeps me on Chrome, among other things). > Having to restart after installing an extension is another. Every time I see the request, I can't help lose a bit of respect for it. Yeah, I've enjoyed the last few years with not having to worry about restarting idk if I could go back...
dblohm7 12y ago
File a bug if you want to request devtools improvements.
agapos 12y ago
"Having to restart after installing an extension is another. Every time I see the request, I can't help lose a bit of respect for it." Restart-less add-ons have been around for long years, so if you see one that wants you to restart Fx, you can blame it on the addon's creator (I know there may be some edge cases where it is a must, but those are pretty rare).
Brakenshire 12y ago
> Firefox has a few of these irritating UX quirks that I just can't get over. Another one is not being able to use shift-home or shift-end to select to the beginning or end of a css property.
- okbake 12y ago
  Wow, this drives me insane. I've always meant to file a bug report about this but I'm not sure if its supposed to be a feature instead. It appears to let you cycle through valid properties but I really wish it was assigned to another key.
yborg 12y ago
>Having to restart after installing an extension is another Because it's part of your everyday workflow to install extensions one after another, right?

cauterized 12y ago

FF's built-in developer tools are still pretty sad, but nothing quite compares to full-blown Firebug on Firefox. The only place anyone else's tools outdo it, IMO, is Chrome's profiling (Firebug's is nearly useless.)

dblohm7 12y ago

How about filing some bugs for your concerns?

jherdman 12y ago
That's my intention. The first step is always to ensure that you're actually dealing with bugs though, it may just be something I'm not used to.

pmontra 12y ago

You should install Firebug. It's better than the integrated dev tools in almost all areas. About writing extensions we had this on HN in September 2014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744

jherdman 12y ago
I'll definitely give Firebug a try. I hadn't even considered it to be honest. I thought I remembered reading a while back that it was no longer important after Mozilla decided to brew their own.
- technojunkie 12y ago
  I feel like adding Firebug adds unneeded weight to FF now that FF's dev tools have matured so much. There's still a lot of work to catch up to Chrome, as you stated, but for the most part it's very capable and Firebug just feels like bloat and adds memory consumption that's not necessary.
  - pmontra 12y ago
    I sometimes use the dev tools but I prefer Firebug. Maybe it's only better looking but there are some real advantages. I'm on a phone now and can't make a side by side comparison. Relying on my memory won't work :-) The dev tools are faster, that's for sure but Firebug is not slow enough to switch. I'd like the two teams to merge.
Silhouette 12y ago
You should install Firebug. It's better than the integrated dev tools in almost all areas. Really? I uninstalled Firebug not so long ago, having concluded that it offered little added value any more, while measurably, repeatably, and dramatically reducing Firefox's performance. Has either or both of these things changed in the last few months?
- cauterized 12y ago

cookiecaper 12y ago

As I understand it, add-ons are updated more slowly than their Chrome counterparts because Mozilla actually reviews the code of each add-on offered from their store to attempt to validate it's not doing anything naughty. Google and Apple make these types of promises, but really they approve things after a cursory glance and then respond to any user complaints that may come in.

wasyl 12y ago
On the other hand I read that the review process is quite slow (as in painfully slow)
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  Yeah, this is the tradeoff. It takes a long time to audit code. Supposedly Mozilla is doing this every time an add-on update is sent for review. Google and Apple just pretend like they do, and I guess Mozilla didn't get the memo that you're supposed to pretend.
sogen 12y ago
Yes, FF/Mozilla trying to be perfect delay lots of things. They should ship fast, fix later (and not be perfectionists).
piyush_soni 12y ago
Which is really what Firefox needs to do as well. This is one of my main pain points as a Firefox Extension developer and a turn off for most I know. Rather than keeping people wait for 15 or so days for approving their add-ons, they should rather improve their automatic code checking tools as much as they can, and stop at that (and have a better extension flagging system). The problem with current system is more if our add-ons are based on a specific website like mine. When that website changes, it breaks my add-on and I upload the fix immediately. But Firefox takes days to approve it, making my add-on look bad in public.