
The First Browser Dedicated to Developers Is Coming - flardinois
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/03/the-first-browser-dedicated-to-developers-is-coming/
======
justcommenting
This seems to reinforce the mindset that the web should be experienced and
built using different tools for users vs. developers, and aside from thinking
that's fundamentally condescending, I don't see why new tools couldn't simply
be extended from FF's 'web developer' menu into a different mode of operation
or even extensions.

I think we're better off in a world where kids don't have to install ScaryFox
on their tablets to start teaching themselves how to debug web applications,
and deal with all of the various forms of other-ing that tend to alienate
people away from starting to learn how to understand and help build the web.

I think it's actually quite important for Mozilla to assume that _of course_
every user deserves _built-in_ access to a high-quality suite of tools for
debugging by default.

~~~
hrktb
I understand the point, but I think there is a reality where developing and
actually experiencing the product can be fundamentally different.

For instance the security model for a browser should be ultra tight and
protect the user from the site, but as a developer I'd want to access and
modify my files directly through the inspector panel.

Another example would be the use of cache, where I want the minimum possible
retention while a user would want the opposite.

As you mention, settings in the developer tools could allow a myriad of
options to switch from a "user" mode to a "developer" mode. But honestly I'd
understand if it happens to be easier to build two different applications,
even just for keeping the "user" side code simple enough to make it easy to
maintain and secure.

Then eventually bundle the two apps together if you want to keep the "tools"
right next to the "viewers".

~~~
Joeri
I don't quite see it that way.

> For instance the security model for a browser should be ultra tight and
> protect the user from the site, but as a developer I'd want to access and
> modify my files directly through the inspector panel.

I don't see any inherent conflict between preventing sites from having access
to the local filesystem, while having powerful local filesystem access from
the browser's integrated devtools. One does not exclude the other.

> Another example would be the use of cache, where I want the minimum possible
> retention while a user would want the opposite.

Caching rules should be managed on the server, not the client. Properly
configured servers/applications never need anyone to clear their caches
explicitly. I don't see why you would need a special cache-less mode in the
browser if you've set up your servers correctly.

In my view developer modes (in browser or framework) are counterproductive
because they create discrepancies between how your users experience your site
or app and how you experience it. Your browser should have the exact same app
experience as the one your users use, so it shouldn't have any special
developer-mode behavior. That doesn't mean you don't need powerful inspection
tools, just that those tools should be built around that standard experience
instead of altering it.

~~~
azernik
WRT caching, the experience of a developer is _already_ completely different
from that for a user - assets on a dev instance of you infrastructure
(including both code and static files) are changing multiple times a minute.

~~~
Joeri
I don't think that should necessarily be the case. By persisting resources in
the cache after they are changed on the server there is an implicit promise of
broken user experiences, since there is no control over which files are loaded
from cache and which ones are not (so even for "harmless" images users will
see mismatched artwork in the real world). Whatever caching strategy is used
for production servers, it should involve a way to make sure users are
fetching the latest version of a resource. The dev server can be configured
identically and it will still do the right thing. Admittedly when you throw
CDN's and other intermediates into the mix it becomes harder to have matching
environments, but differences should be minimized as much as possible as a
matter of development policy.

My dev server is set up identically to a production server, except that no
concatenation or minification is done. I'm not happy with that last
compromise, so fingers crossed that HTTP/2 gets here soon and we can stop
concatenating, minifying and otherwise perverting our code and resources.

~~~
underpantsgnome
This is a lovely dream, but what if you're working on the caching software
instead of the web app?

------
jblok
This is like one of those startup websites/videos that tells you absolutely
nothing about what they are doing.

~~~
cowabunga
The canonical example:

[http://www.zombo.com/](http://www.zombo.com/)

~~~
tjdetwiler
Even better, here's what I get:

[http://i.imgur.com/QCyCMDH.png](http://i.imgur.com/QCyCMDH.png)

~~~
Nyubis
[http://html5zombo.com/](http://html5zombo.com/)

Welcome to the future!

~~~
Gmo
Wow, I am both happy and sad.

Happy because I always wished for an html 5 version, sad because I wish I had
done it myself

------
lachgr
I think this is a logical development. Firefox gets more and more Developer
tools by default, but most users will never touch them. So it sounds logical
to exclude Developer tools from the default package and instead offer an
Developer version of Firefox.

Firefox is my default browser for a long time (switched briefly to Opera, but
when they came with the new Chromium-version I switched back because I didn't
like it) and I'm very satisfied with it. The developer tools are getting
better and better, and I almost never touch Firebug anymore. Also I like
Firefoxs tools more than those of Chrome, but that is a question of taste.

I think there is one thing Firefox can really make better for developers and
that is addon development. I personally never developed an addon but looked
briefly into it and from what I heard was that in comparison to Chrome,
developing for Firefox is difficult. I hope there will be progress on this
level too.

~~~
tuxone
Why a different browser and not just an extension? I feel like different
browsers leads to different versions of engines, languages etc. aka a lot of
headaches. As a web developer, I want to see what my users see, not what
"developers" see..

~~~
Yoric
Actually, this version of Firefox activates a number of web features that are
not activated in the release version, to let webdevs test against features
that are either not 100% stable or not fully standardized yet.

But other than that, it's basically Firefox.

~~~
lmm
So it's just like Chrome Canary? Not exactly "the first" then.

~~~
callahad
Canary is equivalent to
[https://nightly.mozilla.org/](https://nightly.mozilla.org/), or
[http://nightly.webkit.org/](http://nightly.webkit.org/)

This is different.

It's not revolutionary (we're not releasing Servo yet), but it is pretty
fantastic. I'd be shocked if most Firefox Aurora users don't switch over to
the developer browser next week. :)

~~~
paulirish
> This is different.

Is it? Sounds like a side-by-side Aurora with a toolbar button for DevTools.
No separate feature set AFAICT, but you tell me if I'm wrong.

------
daigoba66
So I'm actually a fan of leaving dev tools installed and available in a normal
user's web browser; whether it's IE, Chrome, FireFox, or whatever.

If a user is reporting some bug or issue that's difficult to reproduce, I like
being able to just hit F12 _on their computer_ and diagnose and debug.
Sometimes I can guide the user, sometimes I do it remotely.

Having the ability to debug software like that is phenomenal.

~~~
coldtea
It's not like anyone has taken that away from you.

And as for the new tool, since it also shares the Mozilla engine, it's as if
you're using Firefox (+ some plugins) with regards to web behavior.

~~~
snlacks
This would probably start the trend of the dev features being reduced in
regular browsers, I'd guess. But you're right no one is taking it away yet.

~~~
callahad
Why would any browser vendor have an incentive to remove or restrict developer
features in released browsers?

~~~
goblin89
It seems like it’d be beneficial to many web publishers if browser users
couldn’t easily access underlying resources, and those companies could
incentivize popular vendors to go in that direction (and every decent browser
auto-updates, of course). Suddenly bypassing Flickr’s spaceball becomes too
complicated for regular user.

On the other hand, no one would bother with that in a world where non-mobile
computers are increasingly becoming developer-only machines, so this is
probably just mild paranoia.

~~~
snlacks
That's a really important aspect, are desktops going the route of developer
only? (Non-web) Designers and other white collar probably don't need it, but
they use machines that wouldn't notice the difference...

With FFOS, Android/Chrome, and MS there's a conscious effort to eliminate the
difference in development between desktop, tablet and phone. With more people
using computers, not as many people need or want desktop apps and those
features on all of their desktop apps. If I suddenly need to edit an image, I
don't need PS or even Gimp, I'm often fine with a web app.

------
xtrumanx
Apparently, WebIDE is part of Firefox proper not just nightly. You'll have to
toggle a pref in about:config (devtools.webide.enabled) to make it visible in
the developer menu. It's pretty cool.

~~~
callahad
Looks like it's enabled by default on Beta (34), so it should come to release
Firefox very soon.

------
vegabook
First of all this is analogous to the irritating tendency of car manufacturers
to "tease" models ahead of time. This may cut it for the average consumer, but
here you are targeting the developers, and a straightforward, honest approach
to launch would be more effective, in my view. Developers are blasé to any of
the mind-tricks which marketing will dream up.

Second, please do some moonshot stuff. Please just don't give me tweaks on
javascript. Yes I know js is fine for the front end guys, but more and more,
deep data guys like me are having to interact with this language which leaves
a lot to be desired. While I appreciate the casual, almost refreshing
functional aspects of js, the rest is clearly inferior to almost everything
else (not least forcing multidimensionality into this hierarchical JSON strait
jacket). Here's an idea: put python numpy native into the browser, and give us
expressive power for things other than dom manipulation. Or put Haskell in
there. Do something meaningful. I don't want a spit-and-polished js debugger.

Chance to shine here, Mozilla, to regain the long-lost initiative. No chrome-
catchup again please.

~~~
callahad
I'm likewise pretty surprised that this made it to the top of HN. If you want
straightforward, technical announcements, watch
[https://hacks.mozilla.org/](https://hacks.mozilla.org/) instead of
[https://blog.mozilla.org](https://blog.mozilla.org). The latter is
predominantly press releases and less-technical announcements.

Not that those things are bad, they're just meant for a different audience.

If you want more moonshot-y stuff, emscripten, asm.js, rust, and servo are all
pretty worthy of your attention. :)

------
userbinator
As interesting as the concept is, I can't help but think it'll only make the
already widening divide between "developers" and "ordinary users" even
bigger... or maybe everyone will jump over to the "developer" version once
they realise what they're missing, which would be the ideal situation.

No information there about what exactly it _is_ , however. It could be not
much more than regular Firefox with their WebIDE thing bundled and some UI
changes.

~~~
vinceguidry
It's going to lower the barrier to entry for young people who want to get into
more than just the kiddie stuff. I know when I was a kid, I was smart enough
for BASIC and Pascal but C++ just looked weird and complex and hard. HTML, CSS
and Javascript were awesome and I jumped into that instead. Neat integrated
tools are great for beginners.

What drives a divide is when you go build an entire ecosystem and hand it off
to a cloistered priesthood. Then you make the toolchain so long and complex
that you need 5 years before you even gain the first feeling of
accomplishment.

~~~
emotionalcode
> I know when I was a kid, I was smart enough for BASIC and Pascal but C++
> just looked weird and complex and hard. HTML, CSS and Javascript were
> awesome and I jumped into that instead.

When I was a kid, C++ was easy and I didn't start learning javascript until a
few years ago. I also learned TI-BASIC in AP Calc, and Java (CS II-Honors) was
presented at my school as harder than C++ (CS I). A lot of what is labeled
difficult is very very subjective. A coworker of mine stumbled over Intro to
CS/Programming because he was stuck trying to understand how to program hello
world without understanding how the compiler worked first. Without a teacher
to talk to, this very intelligent student could be seen as one who can't even
grasp 'the basics'. I stumbled over my programming languages class because I
confused the machine interpretation of Scheme, while we developed a
interpreter in Scheme. I'm still confused over it.

> What drives a divide is when you go build an entire ecosystem and hand it
> off to a cloistered priesthood.

It's not so much that it's handed off to, it's more that people aren't very
vocal about what they don't understand. This leads sort of to a 'survival of
the fittest' cycle of development, on a macro scale, with the people who have
a direction, at all, making important decisions, and the people who are most
cautious, staring blankly in confusion. The reality is that everyone is
probably missing some part of what is considered 'the basics' to someone else.

A responsive community dedicated to bringing people into development is also
what lowers the barrier to entry. Students that are so afraid of their
teachers and the 'scary aesthetic' of the material raises the barrier to
entry. If you have someone to ask "what does this symbol mean?" or "am I
thinking in the right direction, or am I making this lesson more complex than
it was intended to be?" then complex and hard become more approachable (not
more simple, however). Sometimes having a person reply back, "I don't know"
can actually help a lot.

When I was just learning to program, I was afraid to ask questions, to talk
about what I knew or thought. I don't know if many young developers struggle
with that today, given how much the landscape has changed. Then I wonder, has
it changed so much, or did it just take me about 15 years to become
comfortable in chaos?

Just some thoughts.

~~~
vinceguidry
> When I was just learning to program, I was afraid to ask questions, to talk
> about what I knew or thought.

I suppose you're right. When I was learning, there was no one to ask questions
to. Glad that's changed.

~~~
emotionalcode
I don't think I'm right or wrong. I still have problems asking people for
help.

Your point about this is poignant:

> Then you make the toolchain so long and complex that you need 5 years before
> you even gain the first feeling of accomplishment.

------
StevePerkins
I'm getting a bit weary of announcements that don't really announce whatever
it is that they're announcing.

It's easier to wait until a de-hyped Wikipedia entry has been written, and
just read that instead.

~~~
mVChr
Hold on to your hats and glasses folks! We're totally stoked to announce the
coming announcement of a browser we'll be releasing shortly after that
announcement! Stay tuned for the follow up announcement letting you know when
we'll announce the release date! We can't wait for you to help us bug test it!

------
blackoil
I would like a strict mode in js and rendering engine, which shows syntax
error like a compiler instead of eating them and failing later at random
places. Ffat fingers and typos take disproportionate time while development.

~~~
cpeterso
Beyond ES5 Strict Mode ("use strict";), Firefox has a
"javascript.options.strict" about:config pref that will log extra warnings
(such as accessing undefined object properties) to the JS console. These
warnings are not enabled by default because they are non-standard and can
report false positives.

------
jawerty
I'm still on the fence about having separate browsers for developers. It
sounds nice as a concept but when I think about it more it seems like a
disaster waiting to happen.

For instance, when I want to debug my website I go to the dev tools within the
browser I'm viewing because I know that my users are viewing the same browser
(typically). Having an entirely different developer browsers makes the
debugging experience less realistic. It puts you in a position where you don't
truly experience what the user does but what you feel more comfortable
experiencing.

~~~
lojack
I completely agree that we want to view what our users are seeing, but as a
counterpoint, that isn't even necessarily possible in any mainstream browser.
We still have to do the majority of our development in our primary browser of
choice and then load up Chrome, Firefox, IE, Opera, etc to see what the rest
of the world sees.

I think it would be a mistake to completely remove the developer tools from
the non-developer version of Firefox, but I'd also be fine using a different
developer-centric browser for the majority of my development understanding
that there may be small differences and edge cases that need to be tested on
numerous other browsers.

~~~
dwild
You can't compare that. Chrome, Firefox, IE, Opera, etc all try to do the same
stuff, they have the same goal and want to do the same. A developer version of
a browser won't have that goal, it's goal is to do something else... it will
do it differently.

One of the PM did a comment and gave as an example that they will block self-
xss on Firefox, which won't be blocked on the developer version. It won't
affect much but you can already see how it's affected. You will be able to run
something on a browser but won't be able to do the same on another.

I seriously don't see why we need a developer version of a browser, except
removing developer stuff from the real browser and/or adding different support
(which will give you issue when you will move to a real browser).

------
dbcooper
Well, I hope that the following two profiler bugs land before then:

Bug 1008435 - [e10s] Port the built-in Gecko profiler to e10s
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1008435](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1008435)

Bug 974832 - WebGL EXT_disjoint_timer_query may now be implemented
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=974832](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=974832)

------
gmcabrita
This appears to be a simple rebrand of Aurora with some extra features[1].

[1] -
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1076914](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1076914)

~~~
hackuser
The linked bug's access rights are limited; Mozilla won't show it to me. Is
that the right bug?

~~~
gmcabrita
They seem to have made the bug report private overnight.

------
maresca
Is there a firefox plugin that lets me edit CSS in the developer tools AND
lets me save the edits back to the actual CSS stylesheet on my machine? I'd
love to see that functionality.

~~~
soapdog
You don't need a plugin for that. In Firefox Nightly that is already enabled.

You can check this article that shows editing LESS and SASS inside the browser
and saving it to the original location on your HD:

[https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/02/live-editing-sass-and-
less...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/02/live-editing-sass-and-less-in-the-
firefox-developer-tools/)

Firefox has lots of awesome devtools but people still think in terms of
Firebug and haven't noticed all the new goodies.

------
hakanderyal
Good intentions, but content and video leaves much to be desired.

The idea is awesome tho, using lots of different tools which doesn't
communicate/integrate with each other is a huge blow to productivity.

------
jonnyscholes
This is the first time I've ever found a roadblock when looking at the inner
workings of FF/Mozilla -
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1054353](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1054353)

Even their etherpads/sprint sheets/team chat logs are public. Not necessarily
saying the bug SHOULD be public, just thought it was intriguing. Makes me
wonder what other - if any - bugs are private (excluding security ones of
course).

------
panzi
Sounds cool. Shame that Mozilla's developer tools are in some respects that
are important to me still inferior to Chrome.

~~~
Yoric
How so?

I'm asking because two Firefox devtools people sit in my office, so if you
have feedback, I can forward it.

~~~
panzi
It's starts with GUI issues where you can't resize certain things (e.g.
columns in the network tab) or only in a very limited way (it got better). Not
being able to inspect objects inline in the console is very annoying. Is there
no "clear network log" button? No option to retain/not retain the network log
on page loads? I want a way to view an element that got logged to the console
in the DOM inspector (Chrome has: context menu -> show in DOM inspector). I
want an auto-completion menu in the style editor in the DOM editor. And there
seems to be no way to search in a script as shown in the debugger. That's such
a basic function, it really makes me wonder. I want a reload menu like in
Chrome, where with open inspector I can choose between "normal reload", "hard
reload" and "clear cache and reload".

In Chrome's console I like that I simply can write the function name and press
enter to see it's source. In Firefox I have to write "String(functionname)".
That's only a minor thing. The best thing would be to get the function source
expandable inline similar to what you can do with objects in Chrome's console.
There should also be a link that lets you jump to the definition of the
function in the JavaScript source.

There is no resource tab in Firefox. Basically I want exactly the resource tab
from Chrome, with a list of all loaded images, scripts, styles etc., grouped
by their origin. I want to see and be able to edit/remove all cookies, local
storage, session storage etc.

You can't select a certain iframe as the context of the console, which makes
it completely useless when you have to debug iframe based widgets.

I just had the case where the debugger statement starts the debugger but it
did not focus on the source line where it occurs, because the debugger request
the script _again_ instead of showing the already loaded resource and the
script was generated as a response to a POST request.

I don't use Firefox for debugging anymore (unless it's a Firefox specific bug
I have to fix) so I don't quite remember the next bit: There where some kind
of big annoyances concerning debugging and exceptions which are caught anyway.
I could not get it to "halt on exception" but not on those that are caught.

That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure I forgot something.

But granted, it is always getting better. Maybe some day it is as good as the
Chrome Inspector. There is one point where it (or Firefox) is better: Error
messages. They are much less cryptic and show the source line of the error. It
says things along the lines of "in foo.bar foo has no method bar" instead of
"undefined is not a function". Also a rethrown exception retains the original
source line, which is very useful.

Firefox's font inspector is nice. I hadn't had a use for it yet, but I can
imagine to have one some day.

In course of writing this comment I looked at the Firefox development tools
again and a lot of things got indeed much better since the last time I looked.

OT: There are also a lot of things that annoy me about Chrome: Since many
month now Linux integration got extremely worse. They dropped gtk for their
own thing and screwed up big time in doing so. Context menus look totally
alien and have no shadow, tooltips (title attribute) look alien and are no
real windows (they get cropped, which makes them useless in certain contexts),
there are lots of graphical glitches, e.g. when dragging stuff (white bg of
the dragged image/text and for the drop marker arrow in the tab bar) and the
scrollbars got the brain dead Windows behavior that not even IE uses anymore.
IE implemented it's own scrollbars, apparently. Other scrollbars in Windows
(and in Chrome) jump around and stop working when you drag the scrollbar and
move the mouse an unknown invisible distance from the scrollbar. Oh and
dragging tabs got unusable bad in Chrome. It's a complete disaster. The tabs
aren't transparent but full sized when you drag them and you can't drag them
down so the bottom border of the window gets outside of the screen, which
makes it impossible to drag a tab to a different window that is located down
in relation to the window you ripped the tab out of. And sometimes tabs move
at an offset form where you grabbed them. WTF? There was a time where Chrome
looked less of an alien under Linux than Firefox. Not anymore. Firefox didn't
get any better, Chrome got much worse. At least you can use the mouse wheel on
the tabs. That is something it does better than Firefox. And the tab size
handling when closing tabs one after another. But enough of that.

~~~
panzi
Oh I want to add: I'm a big fan of the Mozilla foundation and the work it does
for the free web. I just currently don't use Firefox. I do use Thunderbird and
Chatzilla and I'm a fan of Rust. I hope the Phone will be a success, just so
it finances Mozilla.

------
andrewstuart2
I can see where a dedicated browser for development could be a little more
helpful during the 80% phase of development. My main concern however is that
some of that remaining 20% is cross-platform stuff that you can't get right in
a single browser.

Unless they incorporate tiled views from different rendering engines. That
would be awesome.

~~~
giiduh
^Tiled views would be really awesome!

------
amelius
> Mozilla: The First Browser Dedicated to Developers Is Coming

But we need markup and scripting languages dedicated to developers...

------
EpicDavi
I remember people arguing in a thread a while ago about the financial
longevity and user-base sustenance of FireFox. Many were arguing that FireFox
needed something fresh and different and also needed to identify their target
audience.

When Mozilla releases this, which is at least remotely intriguing, many are
quick to find small deleterious criticisms.

The fact of the matter is that they are not removing the earlier dev-tools and
nobody is forcing anybody to migrate to it. They are just trying to make
another tool to help people. Honestly, if you put these arguments in any other
context, either software or real life, they sound absolutely ridiculous.

------
tiffanyricks
This is marketing at its best. Create a browser that developers like to use so
they can build Mozilla compatible products for consumers. Then more the
consumers will adopt this browser as their default browser.

~~~
cpeterso
The developer browser also includes Firefox Tools Adaptor which supports
remote device debugging of mobile browsers like Chrome on Android and Safari
on iOS:

[https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/09/firefox-tools-
adapter/](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/09/firefox-tools-adapter/)

------
sbensu
The ultimate feature for hackers is how hackable something is. That means it
is easier to develop the version for hackers first, and then package a
specific version for end-users. Therefore, if they do develop a hackable
browser and allow everybody to innovate on it, they may well be in their way
to create the next best browser.

This paradox is similar to creating a new microcomputer only for hackers
(Apple I/II) which in turns allows them to develop cool stuff on it (Visicalc)
which in turn makes it the standard for all users.

------
Zolomon
The video and article is full of hype, made me laugh however.

------
resca79
I like the idea of a full browser for developers, but at the some time I fear
the granularity of browsers differences increases also. Currently developers
cannot stay focused on new features of web App itself but they need to check
the compliant with all browsers IMHO that's is one of the major issues why the
web technology is going slow especially in the mobile environment.

------
dombili
I wonder if they'll remove (or at least most of it) developer tools from the
main browser and try to get developers to use this version. Common criticism
of Firefox these days is it feels (and in most cases is) slower and more
bloated than Chrome. This move could help Mozilla make FF faster, no?

~~~
Yoric
Well, the main advantage that Chrome has vs Firefox is not speed (these days,
Firefox is faster than Chrome on most benchmarks I have seen), but smoothness,
which is largely due to the multi-process architecture of Chrome.

Developer tools have strictly no influence on this, and the multi-process
version of Firefox is currently being tested. I don't remember whether there
is an ETA.

~~~
panzi
To me it looks like speed is one of the major advantages. JavaScript speed is
only one thing. There is also render speed. E.g. this runs totally smoothly
(with a bit of flickering (z order problems?)) in Chrome:
[http://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/nojs/](http://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-
fps/nojs/) In Firefox it seems to have something between 1 and 5 fps and is
totally glitched out.

JavaScript speed is not what needs to be worked on currently. Render speed is.

------
andy_ppp
It really would be a godsend if editing your CSS in the browser could make
changes to the underlying files (probably SASS these days). Difficult but
would shave so much time off the make a few changes and rewrite them in an
editor process that so many of us follow these days.

------
phazmatis
Considering all the "helpful" features in chrome that get in the way of
development (copying the url prepends "[http://"](http://"), even for IPs, for
example), this is an important change.

~~~
chrisseaton
What's wrong with prepending the protocol? And why should IP addresses by any
different?

------
Joyfield
"We can't wait telling you about it, so wait until the 10th please." Zzz.

------
OhHeyItsE
This sounds great, but what's with the SV wantrepreneur vaporware video
trailer?

------
cturhan
I don't like google because of privacy concerns but chrome developer tools is
a bit ahead of firefox DT. I hope this new one will give me a good reasons to
switch from chrome to firefox

~~~
EpicDavi
The recent developer tools improvements/additions to FireFox in the nightly
(and maybe aurora) have, in my opinion, surpassed Chrome's.

~~~
cturhan
That's great news. Thanks

------
billpg
One part of the Firefox dev tools I find useful in every-day browsing is the
ability to delete a DIV (or similar) element whenever something causes a bad
layout or otherwise gets in the way.

------
dzhiurgis
SQL queries in address bar to manage your bookmarks or manipulate data from
the websites would be nice.

------
asgard1024
They should fix the URL bar. When I used a webserver on local network, the
URLs got constantly mangled.

------
Touche
If you use a module loader that uses eval to load modules, those modules will
not be shown in the Debugger's Sources in Firefox. It works fine in Chrome.
This is absolutely killer for me, I can't use Firefox for development until it
is fixed.

------
doe88
Of course, if this _dedicated browser_ happened to be based on Servo then this
teasing would largely be worth the wait ;)

~~~
Yoric
Waiting 7 days for Servo? Sign me up :)

------
nimbosa
just what are addons for? an extra special Xtraordinary XPI could deal with
this..

------
esro360
Why dont yu simply accept existance of FireBug ?

~~~
psykovsky
Sure. Firebug is awesome to hang/freeze Firefox, even in modern computers.

------
fdomig
This is like a landing page for a startup - or idea. They first test the
assumption that developers need/want this. If they are proven right, they will
build it. In the next seven days. ;-)

------
neillyons
Is this really needed? I feel like Mozilla are inventing problems to solve.

------
bdg
Mozilla is competing with Google Wave now?

------
pearjuice
Meanwhile Chromium is a perfect hybrid offering the best of both worlds and
doesn't need _another_ browser 'dedicated to developers'. Mozilla is more than
ever feeling the slippery slope of market share under its shoes and this feels
like yet another attempt to recapture a market (web developers) which was once
theirs.

------
Dirlewanger
Yeah...we'll see. If the current state of Firefox's Dev Tools is any indicator
of what they have to show, I'm not optimistic.

~~~
jeltz
Firefox's developer tools are good an improving at a fast pace. I would argue
that they in most aspects have surpassed Firebug and the Chrome developer
tools.

~~~
fournm
I've never liked Chrome's, but I've been trying to go with native dev tools
only on this machine and so far it's gone really well.

------
cageface
_At Mozilla we know that developers are the cornerstone of the Web, that’s why
we actively push standards and continue to build great tools to make it easier
for you to create awesome Web content and apps._

Like canning WebSQL for spurious reasons and forcing people to use a half-
baked spec like IndexedDB instead? As much as I applaud most of what Mozilla
has done to further the interests of the open web it's hard to forget how
profoundly they sabotaged the development of the browser as an application
platform with this particular piece of political NIH grandstanding.

~~~
untog
It's hardly grandstanding when it's the standard everyone agreed on.

I agree that IndexedDB is awful and WebSQL was much better, but go shout at
the W3C, not Mozilla.

~~~
cageface
It was Mozilla's insistence on IndexedDB that tipped the balance. WebSQL was
already well supported in Chrome and Safari and if Mozilla hadn't inexplicably
come down on Microsoft's side we would have a reasonable client-side database
solution today.

Lest this particular piece of villainy be forgotten:
[https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-
apis...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-
road-to-indexeddb/)

~~~
froaway
It takes a special kind of myopia to call a decision inexplicable, and then to
link to a _very explicit description_ of their reasons for that decision.

~~~
cageface
Refuted by almost every single comment on the post, yes.

~~~
fpgeek
There's a difference between inexplicable and an explanation you disagree
with.

