
Firebug lead developer now working on Web dev tools at Google - tbassetto
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/firebug-working-group/GNCZeL1eWq8
======
nestlequ1k
I switched to Chrome web dev tools about 5 months ago and haven't had a reason
to launch Firefox since.

There's still stuff I miss about firebug, but overall the chrome web tools are
a gigantic improvement in speed, reliability, and functionality. Firebug feels
like a dinosaur in comparison.

Capturing the web developer mindshare is actually a huge win for Google,
because it means the quality of web apps is going to be highest for Chrome
end-users, with subtle but visible bugs in other browsers due to the simple
fact that developers will spend less time in these browsers.

~~~
hackinthebochs
I have the exact opposite experience with Chrome dev tools. It feel clunky and
poorly designed in comparison to firebug. Things like clicking on an element
you're trying to edit doesn't work. The page doesn't automatically update your
changes as you type them. Trying to modify an html attribute in line is a
battle. I could go on. It just doesn't feel polished. It doesn't feel like the
people who wrote it actually use it, whereas firebug feels like the user
experience was first priority.

~~~
true_religion
Chrome has the best Javascript debugging tools.

However when it comes to CSS and HTML, its lagging behind Firebug.

That said, now adays I find myself in Chrome far more than Firefox simply
because Javascript debugging in Chrome is fast, never crashes, and is pretty
necessary if you're building an extensive rich interface app.

~~~
csomar
I don't think I agree, as a heavy JavaScript developer. I use FireBug
specifically for JavaScript debugging, here are the reasons:

1\. The console is a lot better. You aren't limited to the one line
interpreter that Chrome provides.

2\. Using console.log, and console.dir I get a colored DOM/JSON output. I can
click the DOM element and it'll get me to the DOM/HTML tab. This is not
available in Chrome. I can move the mouse over the DOM element and it'll be
highlighted in the browser.

3\. Add-ons: I use the jQuery and Cookies add-ons and they add a lot to the
console. I can include jQuery with a click and it highlights the jQuery
objects for me in the console. I can watch cookies changes from the console
directly.

4\. For the debugging tools, they are equal. For syntax coloring the
JavaScript code, there is a Firebug add-on for that.

~~~
chrisbroadfoot
Chrome can do #1 and #2.

~~~
photon_off
How do you do #2?

~~~
masklinn
Recent versions of the Webkit dev tools do syntax coloration and highlighting
on hover.

They don't link to the Elements tab though.

------
scelerat
I hope this doesn't portend bad things for Firebug down the road; it's nice to
have a variety of tools, but kudos to Mr. Barton for making the move and, more
importantly, providing a devastatingly useful and revolutionary web
development tool.

Front end web development changed seemingly overnight for the better when
Firebug came on the scene.

~~~
mikemaccana
Keen in mind that Firefox 8 (and 7, and I think earlier versions) has Web
Developer tools built in, obviating much of the need for Firebug.

~~~
tbassetto
Unfortunately, the new web developers tools* built into Firefox represent a
small subset of what Firebug and Webkit Inspector can do. Since Firebug is not
compatible with Nightlies (Firefox 8) and Aurora (Firefox 7), it's a major
regression.

* <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Using_the_Web_Console>

~~~
zobzu
That's not even true.

The web console is not a replacement for firebug. its just decent built in
tools.

Firebug - guess what - supports Firefox 7 and probably 8 too. And of course,
Firefox 5 as well which is the latest release of Firefox btw.

It's tiring to read the large amount of FUD against Firefox lately. People
like you are the major regression to the interwebs. Very seriously.

<http://getfirebug.com/>

~~~
Locke1689
The page you linked indicates that Firefox 8 is not supported. Also, please
try to be civil with your comments in the future (and welcome to HN).

------
gary4gar
I am Sold. I am switching to WebDev tools. If anyone needs an intro, here is
video of session done during Google I/O 2011

-> Google I/O 2011: Chrome Dev Tools Reloaded <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8SS-rUEZPg>

Btw, Paul Irish is co-presenter ;)

~~~
eneveu
Interesting video. Thanks!

Some nice tips & tricks were also posted on the chromium blog a few months
ago: [http://blog.chromium.org/2011/02/chrome-developer-tools-
back...](http://blog.chromium.org/2011/02/chrome-developer-tools-back-to-
basics.html)

------
dr_win
Hmm, interesting. I guess, now it's Joe's chance to elevate Firebug yet again
:-)

<http://joehewitt.com/post/creative-tools>

~~~
rmc
Dead link

------
inportb
Well, it boils down to money, and Google's got it. I'd call that a major win
for Google ;)

~~~
scorchin
I don't think Mozilla is short on cash.

In 2009 the Mozilla Foundation chalked up $104 million in revenue[1] from ties
with Google, Yahoo, Yandex, Amazon, Ebay and others. I'd imagine there are
some large donations in there as well.

[1] <http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/annualreport/2009/faq.html>

~~~
azakai
Google's resources are orders of magnitude larger than Mozilla's.

Google's marketing budget for Chrome is likely larger than Mozilla's entire
budget overall.

I can't say anything about this particular hire and what the reasons were
there, since I know nothing about it. But in general if money is your goal,
Google can outbid everyone else, often by a lot.

~~~
magicalist
In spite of the completely irrelevant lack of marketing money, Mozilla could
still have hired John (if he would even have accepted, at this point).

I wasn't expecting this announcement, but it's not surprising. Google is
actively developing their dev tools, and Mozilla has...some exploratory
experiments, with no concrete roadmap for a feature complete Firebug
replacement. I still don't understand the politics behind Mozilla's decisions
regarding firebug and switching to developing built-in tools (while giving
token support to the firebug crew), but it was a poor one. A clean slate is
great in theory, but when you alienate a community and defacto-deprecate a
tool with no replacement in sight, this is exactly the kind of thing you
should expect.

~~~
dangoor
I will certainly grant that our roadmap has never called for a "feature
complete Firebug replacement". Our goal has been to explore new ideas while
building out tools that we can ship with the browser. We're also working on
improving Firefox's infrastructure for developer tools (a whole new JavaScript
debugging interface is underway for SpiderMonkey, for example).

Mozilla has a lot going on and Firebug, for it's part, is an independent
project with goals and plans of its own. I wrote about this a bit here:

[http://blog.mozilla.com/devtools/2011/05/25/the-
relationship...](http://blog.mozilla.com/devtools/2011/05/25/the-relationship-
between-firebug-and-mozilla-developer-tools/)

Mozilla's developer tools work has been steadily increasing this year, and
you'll start seeing a good deal more communication about what we're up to.

Kevin (product manager for Mozilla's developer tools)

------
maurycy
Business as usual, at Mountain View.

My guess, Firefox have gotten that big because of the developers that
installed the browser everywhere. It's the same story as Twitter, which
flourished the same way.

That's why the Chrome developments do not come as a surprise, as well as the
Google+'s API, which is already in closed beta (how many years it took
Facebook to create their own "platform" that, effectively, alienated many
regular users, not interested in the farm news?)

------
plasma
You can use 'Firebug Lite' with Chrome (<http://getfirebug.com/>), as well as
IE/other browsers.

I use Chrome's built in dev tools but also Firebug Lite, its handy to see Ajax
queries (and console debug logs) on the actual page instead of a separate
Chrome window.

------
TechnoFou
Well the Chrome tools are already awesome. I didn't even need the CSS Selector
plugin for Firefox with Chrome because it has a similar built it feature. It
can only get better with the inclusion of Firebug's lead developer! Congrats
for the best!

------
millergarym
I do a lot of my development in GWT. Ironically whilst JS heavy app run much
better in Chrome, in GWT devmode Firefox is still king and Firebug the dev
weapon of choice.

------
ootachi
Mozilla is pretty much treading water at this point. It's only a matter of
time before the inevitable drowning.

~~~
cageface
I thought so too but Firefox 5+ is much improved. It's close to a toss-up for
me between Chrome and Firefox at the moment.

------
SonicSoul
couldn't he still contribute to Firebug in his spare time?

------
grandalf
feature request:

figure out some convention to do console output that doesn't break on browsers
that don't support the console. Maybe something like:

//->console.log("hello world")

~~~
enneff
if (!window.console) { window.console = { log: function() {} } }

~~~
Inviz
1\. there are more methods (dir, group, error, etc)

2\. some browsers provide console.log but not others

3\. those methods most of the time are not .apply'able or .call'able. that
matters when you try to output an array of items with the right
firebug/devtools coloring. But you cant. You get the ["Message", "was sent",
{Object}] output with the arrayish square brackets and all strings with the
double quotes. If you pass values directly via console.log(type, action,
object) the output will not have double quotes around each string and the
"Message was sent" part will read as one sentence, not two values of one
array.

4\. Some combinations of firefox (i think ff4) with firebug (even disabled)
raise exceptions when you attempt to redefine one of the console objects. The
exception alone renders some of the sites broken.

Handling the console object is needlessly painful and hard. Someone has to
stop it.

~~~
psadauskas

        function myLog() {
          if(window.console && window.console.log) {
            window.console.log(arguments)
          }
        }

~~~
Inviz
What do you think happens when you pass arguments to functions like that?

~~~
jdunck
window.console.log.apply(window.console, arguments)

~~~
Inviz
See? There's the problem. Since there's no conclusion between vendors on
console object API, console.log function may not have .apply method.

It's not only the console object functions actually, most of the browsers
choke on a [1,2,3].forEach(alert) and other [Native Code] functions.

~~~
gonchuki
Function.prototype.apply.apply(console.log, [console, arguments]);

Works both on IE9 broken console.log, and regular console.log from other
vendors. Same hack as using Array.prototype.slice to convert arguments into a
real array.

------
trungonnews
this is pretty much game over for firebug...

~~~
dangoor
No, actually it's not. John is part of a team that manages and develops
Firebug. The team is still there, including Jan Odvarko who we (Mozilla) pay
to work full-time on Firebug.

I don't want to downplay John's part in Firebug, which is huge and it's a real
shame that the project is losing him. I just want to point out that you will
continue to see Firebug releases going forward.

Kevin (PM for Mozilla's developer tools)

------
kimkk
That is the way, Google grows.

------
camworld
I don't think it's about money. I feel that Mozilla has made a strategic
mistake in switching to a very rapid release schedule. My clients keep saying
things like, "Firefox 5? Didn't Firefox 4 just come out like two months ago?"

I haven't even bothered with Firefox 5 yet. It's not worth my time to work
inside yet another browser. At this rate, I might as well just dump Firefox
and work inside Chrome.

Mozilla needs to slow the hell down and let Extension developers catch up.

~~~
shinratdr
> I feel that Mozilla has made a strategic mistake in switching to a very
> rapid release schedule.

That wasn't the mistake. The mistake was stealing the technical part from
Chrome, and not the part that end users love.

Trust me, the only reason Chrome's rapid release schedule hasn't garnered this
criticism is because 9/10 users couldn't tell you what the current version of
Chrome is, much less what it was when they originally installed it.

Google, while adopting rapid release, has simultaneously made version numbers
irrelevant to anyone except devs and power users. That was the important part.
Updates don't matter and they just happen.

Mozilla adopted rapid release but kept publicizing each major version like it
was a big deal and giving end users ways to opt out other than turning off
updates completely. This is a BAD idea.

Rapid release needs to come hand in hand with safer, less drastic, and
seamless updates. This will never happen until Mozilla overhauls its
extensions system because of how deep & old-world it is and how prone
extensions are to break during minor updates.

It's unfortunate for the NoScript fanatics, but a rapid release schedule
simply does not work if you provide this many hesitations. I still see FF3.6
and FF4 everywhere, yet unless the person doesn't run Chrome very often,
Chrome is always at 12.x. If it isn't, it will be next time they launch.

It's funny, in a way users who clamour for stuff like NoScript are actually
putting average users in more danger for their own personal benefit. If
Mozilla was allowed to overhaul FF's extension system, updates could be much
more seamless and end users would actually end up with the latest version of
the program.

Instead, we run the gamut from 1.x to 2.x to 3.x to 4.x to 5.x and everything
in between. I'm sure anyone who has worked as a desktop tech has somewhat
recently encountered a Firefox 1.x/2.x installation here and there, ever catch
a Chrome 1? Chrome 3? Chrome 7? Really, anything except the latest version at
the time? Exactly.

~~~
abraham
Firefox versions after v4 update automatically. They show a dialog during
restart while they check extension compatibility but everything happens
seamlessly.

Mozilla also has a script that scans extensions on AMO and auto updates the
versions they support if they don't detect any issues. For the majority of
extensions they should keep working unless they do wired hacky things or use
more advanced extension APIs.

Mozilla has also been downplaying the version numbers in recent announcements
for Firefox updates. By the end of the year everyone using Firefox will be in
the same state of not caring that Chrome users are at.

Mozilla has also overhauled the extension system with the introduction of the
Add-on SDK. It is still a little rough but it is HTML/JS, doesn't require
browser restarts and it has a fresh API for developers to use. Developers just
need to switch to it.

~~~
shinratdr
> Firefox versions after v4 update automatically.

I haven't experienced that behaviour, at least in the Mac version. Every
machine I have was updated from v4 to v5 manually, because it didn't happen
automatically.

> Mozilla also has a script that scans extensions on AMO and auto updates the
> versions they support if they don't detect any issues. For the majority of
> extensions they should keep working unless they do wired hacky things or use
> more advanced extension APIs.

That unfortunately characterizes many Firefox extensions. I also feel that you
are downplaying the issue, I have had simple plugins have their toolbar
buttons break between minor updates. The current Firefox extension system just
isn't right for the times.

> Mozilla has also been downplaying the version numbers in recent
> announcements for Firefox updates.

> Mozilla has also overhauled the extension system with the introduction of
> the Add-on SDK.

That is good to hear, I wasn't aware of that. I still would have preferred it
if they had dealt with these issues before switching schedules, it's not like
they came out of the blue. Now we have this drawn out transition period that
could have been shorter. It also remains to be seen if they'll be aggressive
about migrating to this new extensions system.

------
omouse
BASTARDS THEYRE TAKING IT ALL AWAY FROM ME!

I used to love firefox but since firefox4 and the awesome speed of
Chrome...it's been hard not to turn away from it ;/

