Re: Full version of Firebug for Chrome?

[Jan Honza Odvarko]

Firebug is Firefox extension and as such can't run with other
browsers.

You can use Firebug Lite (pure JS application running within a page),
but nobody is maintaining Firebug Lite at the moment.

Honza


On Jun 14, 4:57 pm, George99 <geo...@kingwebmaster.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was wondering if there are any plans for a full version of Firebug for
> Chrome.
> I used to love Firefox until they came out with version 4.  It has just
> gone downhill ever since.  Firefox is Commodore 64 slow.  All other
> browsers blow it away as far as speed is concerned.  I am just sick of it
> already. Constant version updates, never increasing any speed, memory
> hogging, etc.
> Chrome is insanely fast, but I don't like the developer tools thing that is
> just a Firebug wannabe.
>
> Firebug is the only reason I still use Firefox.

[Sebastian Zartner]

Im sure he knows that. Its the full version that many of us are dreaming of for chrome. Its very frustrating having to keep going back to firefox because the developer panel on chrome is no where near as good as firebug.

Making Firebug compatible with Chrome would require a complete own developer team because Firebug uses a lot of Firefox specific APIs. Because we already have limited resources I'm afraid the answer is no, there are no plans for making it compatible with Chrome.

Sebastian

[Matt Bourne]

Have you considered a kickstarter appeal?

I think there would be literally thousands of developers who would contribute.

I appreciate it would be a challenge but there is mad desperation for it. Added to that the sad truth is the writing is on the wall in the chrome v firefox fight.

Matt

[Sebastian Zartner]

Have you considered a kickstarter appeal?

We thought more of winning new team members for the current Firebug (for Firefox) project by moving to github.
But Firebug is open source. So everyone wanting to work on a project like this is welcome to do so. If you want to be the leader of that project, we'll help you with it.
 

I think there would be literally thousands of developers who would contribute.

There could be a lot of potential developers for that. Though note it's already hard to find contributors for Firebug Lite, which is currently on ice due to a lack of resources.

I appreciate it would be a challenge but there is mad desperation for it. Added to that the sad truth is the writing is on the wall in the chrome v firefox fight.

Again, if somebody wants to take that challenge, we appreciate that. Though the current Firebug team doesn't have the resources to start a second big project.

Sebastian

[Sebastian Zartner]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012 6:26:53 AM UTC+2, Sid wrote:

Yeh I thought about that, if they even sell the extinction for like $1.99 they will be able to provide some sort of support for it.

I didn't see that comment earlier.
I hope you mean extension and not extinction. ;-) Firebug is open source and freeware. So there's nothing to sell. And if you mean, we should charge money for it, there would still be a lack of resources.

Again, everyone willing to start working on such a project is welcome to do so.

Sebastian

[Ken Amron]

I had also thought that a revise of ChromeBug was in order, until I started using NodeJS. With a little bit of work to turn the NodeJS .EXE into a service, it allows the server hosting to occur as a localhost, with the absolutely simple use of a single executable! NODE.EXE. Running NODE.EXE on the client eliminates most needs for plugins and does not require the broken security model which non-certified plugIns create.

NodeJS is not without its own pain, but it creates a single paradigm for any requirement that needs unrestricted access to the client PC. Now the plug-ins become NODEJS plug-ins. Instead of trusting your Mozilla plug-in, you need to trust your NODEjs apps.

I know that "...NodeJS is the answer" may not be what FFx/Mozilla afficionados want to hear, but there is no way that any technology can approach the legacy and proven install-base of FFx/XUL. Each piece has a role to play and to blur these is a mistake.

I am developing a a tool, soon to be delivered to 18,000 clients who need to operate in an offline mode, with access to "host" storage (i.e. their own hard-drives), which I am providing via NODEjs on the client. The reason I am using FFx/XUL is that this is the only way I can completely control my sandbox. I have a single operating target environment (i.e. whichever XULRunner I choose to install).  That XULRunner will work with decades-old PCs without any conflict with any versions of any browsers. And I don't have to worry about different browser providers or even old FFx versions-- only the XULRunner that I choose to package with my tool. If the client has FFx, it is not an issue!

The legacy of hard working Mozilla committed developers worldwide for the last decade have already proven that this target sandbox will be install-able. I can leave the details of that install to the folks at Installshield or some other similar tool and spend my time developing in a world of knowns.

Thank you Mozilla committed developers for making this possible and for continuing to improve Firebug and the environment it supports.

Sebastian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Firebug" group.
To post to this group, send email to fir...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
firebug+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/firebug

--
Ken Amron
Digital Parts, Inc.
877.374.4300 ext. 567

[Sebastian Zartner]

I had also thought that a revise of ChromeBug was in order, until I started using NodeJS. With a little bit of work to turn the NodeJS .EXE into a service, it allows the server hosting to occur as a localhost, with the absolutely simple use of a single executable! NODE.EXE. Running NODE.EXE on the client eliminates most needs for plugins and does not require the broken security model which non-certified plugIns create.

NodeJS is not without its own pain, but it creates a single paradigm for any requirement that needs unrestricted access to the client PC. Now the plug-ins become NODEJS plug-ins. Instead of trusting your Mozilla plug-in, you need to trust your NODEjs apps.

I know that "...NodeJS is the answer" may not be what FFx/Mozilla afficionados want to hear, but there is no way that any technology can approach the legacy and proven install-base of FFx/XUL. Each piece has a role to play and to blur these is a mistake.

I am developing a a tool, soon to be delivered to 18,000 clients who need to operate in an offline mode, with access to "host" storage (i.e. their own hard-drives), which I am providing via NODEjs on the client. The reason I am using FFx/XUL is that this is the only way I can completely control my sandbox. I have a single operating target environment (i.e. whichever XULRunner I choose to install).  That XULRunner will work with decades-old PCs without any conflict with any versions of any browsers. And I don't have to worry about different browser providers or even old FFx versions-- only the XULRunner that I choose to package with my tool. If the client has FFx, it is not an issue!

Your project sounds really interesting.
Though it is not Chromebug that the people are asking for here. They want to port Firebug to the Google Chrome browser. So that are two different worlds.
 

The legacy of hard working Mozilla committed developers worldwide for the last decade have already proven that this target sandbox will be install-able. I can leave the details of that install to the folks at Installshield or some other similar tool and spend my time developing in a world of knowns.

Thank you Mozilla committed developers for making this possible and for continuing to improve Firebug and the environment it supports.

 Just want to note that most of the people behind Firebug are not working for Mozilla.

Sebastian

[Jan Honza Odvarko]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:31:41 AM UTC+2, Thomas O'Hearn wrote:

Nothing new on a Firebug for Chrome, or at least a solid alternative? I'm pretty stuck on Chrome OS and would rather not use Firefox, but the extension is so fantastic. :(

Thanks!

But we still don't have enough resources to maintain
even the Firebug Lite project.

Honza

 

[Vick G.]

Would be awesome with a full version of firebug for chrome. You guys should start a kickstarter project. Many people would donate, I def would. Been using firebug for years and it's it's def one of my favorite tools.

[Sebastian Zartner]

As mentioned before in this thread, the problem is rather the manpower. Firebug is currently maintained by a handful of people.
So what a Firebug for Chrome would need is programmers.

Sebastian

[Carlos Santana]

Chrome has a development environment which I would say runs of a 95%+ level as Firebug.

So it is not at all bad.

I still do prefer FB, because the UI fits my way of doing things better.

If it comes to debugging of mobile applications, Chrome is second to none.

[al...@alexquintana.net]

> There could be a lot of potential developers for that. Though note it's already hard to find contributors for Firebug Lite, which is currently > on ice due to a lack of resources.

Maybe the reason it's hard is because Firebug lite is not Firebug? We don't want Firebug lite, we don't want Firebug lite to be further developed.. We want FULL FIREBUG for Chrome.

I agree that Kickstarter would be a great way to go with this. I would certainly contribute if it meant it was guaranteed that Firebug would make it to Chrome.

Right now as it is literally in my current project whenever I have a JS error I have to open up Firefox and check it in Firebug because the error messages/line #s on Chrome are pathetically incompetent. Firebug nails it always.

[Sebastian Zartner]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 10:43:55 PM UTC+1, al...@alexquintana.net wrote:

Right now as it is literally in my current project whenever I have a JS error I have to open up Firefox and check it in Firebug because the error messages/line #s on Chrome are pathetically incompetent. Firebug nails it always.

Note that Firebug heavily relies on the underlying browser APIs. This means that the error messages you see in Firebug are exposed by Firefox.
So if Chrome doesn't provide the correct meta data for a JavaScript error, there's no way for a tool based on it to get the right info.

Sebastian