Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Introduces Browser-Based WebIDE

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the every-greenspunned-program-eventually-sprouts-emacs dept.

Mozilla 132

mpicpp (3454017) writes with word that Mozilla released a full development environment integrated into Firefox (available now in nightly builds). From the announcement: Developers tell us that they are not sure how to start app development on the Web, with so many different tools and templates that they need to download from a variety of different sources. We’re solving that problem with WebIDE, built directly into Firefox. Instead of starting from zero we provide you with a functioning blueprint app with the click of a button. You then have all the tools you need to start creating your own app based on a solid foundation. WebIDE helps you create, edit, and test a new Web application right from your browser. It lets you install and test apps on Firefox OS devices and simulators and integrates the Firefox Developer Tools for seamless debugging and inspection across those devices. This is a first step towards debugging across various platforms and devices over WiFi using open remote debugging APIs. The default editor is based on CodeMirror, but the protocol for interacting with the IDE is open and support for other editors (Emacs anyone?) should appear soon.

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes! Youtube video! HTML5! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304359)

thanks

Only pussies use Emacs ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304705)

... real tough guys use debug.com

Re: Yes! Youtube video! HTML5! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47305115)

Even dumber people will now be able to call themselves "Web Developers."

IPE (5, Insightful)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about 3 months ago | (#47304367)

Ah, the inner platform effect [wikipedia.org] at its finest.

Re:IPE (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304391)

But does it run Emacs?

Re:IPE (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 3 months ago | (#47306177)

Never mind that. I might be old, but I'm imagining what a Beowulf cluster of these would do.

Re:IPE (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#47304515)

I don't think that applies given that the IDE is for the web, not the browser. This is more like a digital photo frame shipping with a photo editing package. Which is kind of worse, because at least the inner platform ships users the tools they need to make the product itself better.

Re:IPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304595)

Actually - it sounds like Netscape Communicator all over again.
Next up, they'll be re-integrating Thunderbird.

Meanwhile, everyone is still flocking to Chrome because Firefox has been getting slower and more bloated.
Note: I still prefer FF because of NoScript.

Re:IPE (2)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#47304767)

Well, Firefox OS doesn't include thunderbird, including instead an HTML5 'app' for mail.

I've only played with it in the simulator but with a simple css reskin, they could add a multi-pane view for tablets and the desktop. :)

Re: IPE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304829)

Firefox OS is irrelevant. Pretty much nobody uses it, and those who have tried it briefly rarely have anything good to say about it.

Re: IPE (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 3 months ago | (#47306599)

firefox OS is one of two mobile OS's that neither shackles the user like a slave nor spies on him like a criminal.

Re: IPE (1)

Tridus (79566) | about 3 months ago | (#47306723)

That's great. Let me know when it's on a phone that people are actually buying.

Re: IPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47306889)

How do you know the NSA doesn't have backdoors in any of the proprietary binary blogs required by the devices running FirefoxOS?

Re:IPE (1)

Megane (129182) | about 3 months ago | (#47304871)

FWIW, Mozilla Seamonkey, which is more directly descended from Netscape Communicator than Firefox, still has "Edit Page" in the File menu with a freaking accelerator key attached to it. Because so many people are constantly editing pages in their web browser that it needs to be a keystroke away. (I'm pretty sure most web servers would refuse to do anything with the "edited" page.) 99.999% of the time it's used is probably when someone meant to hit control-W to close a tab.

Re: IPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47305163)

It's more for capturing a local cleaned-up copy of the content of a web page. Which we are, of course, not supposed to do.

Why, the very idea! A browser is supposed to be a consumption-only device. Leave content creation and archiving to the Professionals. Harumph!

Re: IPE (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47305919)

Why, the very idea! A browser is supposed to be a consumption-only device. Leave content creation and archiving to the Professionals. Harumph!

That's exactly the idea why Alan Kay is fighting against the Web. Well, trying to, anyway. It makes the web a walled garden, even if one of a slightly different kind.

Re:IPE (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 3 months ago | (#47305653)

I probably use firebug at least once a month to delete a random misbehaving element or otherwise "fix" a broken 3rd party webpage I am trying to view.
I use it constantly for work but it's suprising how often I find it useful for making a 3rd party website more usable.

Re:IPE (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47305887)

No, it's the "everyone eventually find out Smalltalk is way better and deserved to be emulated" effect.

Re:IPE (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47305899)

Damn. "finds", "deserves".

So YouTube example is your own XXX app? (2)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 3 months ago | (#47304371)

YouTube video has developer labouring away making an XXX app ...

Re:So YouTube example is your own XXX app? (1, Funny)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47304407)

A technology is always bound to become successful when it can be used to deliver porn.

Re:So YouTube example is your own XXX app? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 months ago | (#47304431)

YouTube video has developer labouring away making an XXX app ...

You're one X short of a pint Cobber!

You might be mistaken. (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about 3 months ago | (#47304607)

You might very well be mistaken. XXX [google.nl] is intrinsic to the coat of arms of Amsterdam. Obviously this fine demo comes from a developer working for the city government, you insensitive clod!

There are several explanations why this is so, with fire, flood, pestilence being the prevalent theory.
http://boingboing.net/2006/04/... [boingboing.net]

Bloat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304399)

From the History of Firefox [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia article:

Hyatt, Ross, Hewitt and Chanial[7] developed their browser to combat the software bloat of the Mozilla Suite

Bloat !!!!! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304419)

Oh ffs. Firefox is supposed to be a browser. Put the web IDE in it's own product. This is going to introduce yet more attack vectors and bugs into the code.

Firefox *really* needs forking to follow the original vision. Make a fast, lean, controllable web BROWSER. Not a bloody operating system. Not a bloody IDE, not a bloody whizz bang collection of crud.

Developers suck. They get something to a good point and every single time they tinker and fiddle leading to bloated, unusable, resource hungry, insecure crap.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (5, Informative)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47304475)

This is going to introduce yet more attack vectors and bugs into the code.

They won't write it natively, but in js+xul. Won't add much security relevant bugs.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304513)

They won't write it natively, but in js+xul. Won't add much security relevant bugs.

If this wasn't /., I'd almost think you were being serious.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (2)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47305281)

If this wasn't /., I'd have fed you... Doh!

Re:Bloat !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304481)

Not any old bloat, it's a new super-bloaty fat bastardised copy of Seamonkey Composer!

Or did the people at Seamonkey tell them to fck off because they didn't want their work to get broken?

Firefox devs WTF are you trying to do???

Re:Bloat !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304509)

Firefox devs WTF are you trying to do???

Everything.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304715)

Oh, when do they anticipate to merge with systemd?

Re:Bloat !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47305005)

Right after the merge with svchost.exe

Re:Bloat !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47305341)

right after systemd swallowed the borg (microsoft).

Re:Bloat !!!!! (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#47305091)

I'm waiting for Firefox 3000: Kitchen Sink Edition.

At the current versioning rate... (1)

gwolf (26339) | about 3 months ago | (#47305711)

Firefox 3000 should arrive no later than Summer 2016.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (1)

Megane (129182) | about 3 months ago | (#47304903)

They've already changed the UI three or four times since 3.x, it's time for them to branch out. Naturally Seamonkey's "Edit Page" (does anyone really use that?) would be the lowest hanging fruit to start with and blow up to ten times its original bloat. Still, I think what they are doing is at least potentially useful, unlike Edit Page.

Quick, someone tell them about emacs!

Re:Bloat !!!!! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304519)

So the WebIDE is bundled into every download of FF, but at same time they are moving every single feature a normal browser user uses into extensions or at most, into "about:config" -ui?!! I now have a one extension which provides the "hide tabs when one tab is open" -functionality, another to move tabs below the address-bar and to hide the other Australis-crap. Likely there will be need for yet another extension on FF 31, but the dev tools used by ~0,000001% of the FF userbase are always included. Great.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47305951)

I sort of thought that a large portion of the development features (debugger, inspector, profiler etc.) has already been there for some time? The incremental cost of adding CodeMirror and fleshing it out a bit surely can't be that huge.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304553)

This. I remember when Firefox was made to be stripped down of any features not absolutely needed to browse the web. It was a web browser and that was is.
Then it got some extensions to improve the web experience, which was great.

But then it started taking extension features and adding them in to the browser.
And more. And more.

Then it started breaking the extension API constantly. AN API. A THING THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED VERY SPECIFICALLY TO NOT EXPOSE SECONDARY DEVELOPERS TO CHANGES IN THE CODE. IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO CHANGE MOZILLA, ONLY EXTEND.
DEFAULT VALUES MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU KNOW IT?!
God. No wonder so many extension devs ditched the damn thing. I'd have given up long before. So many good extensions died.

Then they began ruining the interface. Changing it drastically. Locking things down. Gotta be more standard between different users! Gotta be like Chrome!

Then there was nobody left to complain.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 3 months ago | (#47304631)

Developers suck.

The new kids (new developers) sucks. They do not have the slightest idea of what is programming in an efficient manner. All that matters to them is to make "shinny new things".

Re:Bloat !!!!! (1, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about 3 months ago | (#47304797)

There's a petition from a few thousand old developers that want Microsoft to restart VB6 development, despite how godawful that is.

Developers sucking has no restriction on new vs old.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (4, Insightful)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 3 months ago | (#47304847)

You picked up a very bad example. It is perfectly possible to make very good applications using VB6 when you know what you're doing, and the same goes for any other programming language. But when you have a "script kiddie developer", he will make trash code in any language.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#47305111)

Especially when all they're used to do is just load dozens of libraries to use a handful of functions from each one. That's how we get a Web version of "Hello World" that requires three megabytes of download.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47305977)

Yeah, what they really should do is re-invent the wheel each time.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#47306305)

What they're doing is adding an 18-wheeler, a backhoe and a bulldozer to a kid's tricycle.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | about 3 months ago | (#47304937)

>>> Developers tell us that they are not sure how to start app development on the Web

Are they sure they are talking to developers or their paid staff? :-)

Re:Bloat !!!!! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304655)

Oh ffs. Firefox is supposed to be a browser.

Are you sure? Because I'd swear that all the stuff they have been removing lately is stuff related to it being a browser. You know, all the things that we get told we need to install an ad-on for. And of course we already know that the next version is going to break that ad-on once again.

Firefox, the development environment. With the option to install a bunch of ad-ons that turns it into a browser.

Re:Bloat !!!!! (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 3 months ago | (#47306009)

Browsers are operating systems, didn't you know that ?

https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAP... [mozilla.org]

Emacs support (0)

torsmo (1301691) | about 3 months ago | (#47304429)

You don't support Emacs. Emacs supports you!

Antitrust...? (0)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about 3 months ago | (#47304445)

Firefox better watch itself. Trying to "nudge" people into creating apps that only work properly with their browser / OS may not end well for it.

Re:Antitrust...? (4, Insightful)

colfer (619105) | about 3 months ago | (#47304507)

Not that.

Right now this protocol is useful for Firefox Desktop, Firefox Android, and Firefox OS. But we aren’t stopping there. We’re working on a protocol adapter that will allow clients using the Firefox Remote Debugging Protocol – including the Developer Tools and WebIDE – talk to all mobile browsers, regardless of rendering engine or runtime. Our first targets are Chrome for Android and Safari on iOS.

Re:Antitrust...? (1, Informative)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#47304827)

It's HTML5, the web, the universal runtime.

Anything they do is proposed as a w3C standard, so other platforms such as Tizen, webOS and Chromium OS can share ideas.

'work properly'? Naturally you ought to test against other browsers and/or use 'polyfill' libraries such as Phonegap.

Re:Antitrust...? (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 3 months ago | (#47305857)

They will never 'nudge' people into creating apps that only work on their own browser/OS.

You probably missed what Mozilla is about.

RIP firefox, lean and fast (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 months ago | (#47304455)

We hardly knew ya. Too bad you learnt nothing from your dad, Netscape.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (2)

colfer (619105) | about 3 months ago | (#47304539)

That's long gone. The download (29MB for win32) is now larger than Seamonkey (20MB). At least half the development is focused on mobile and other projects. Thunderbird and Seamonkey have no paid developers. I assume the mobile products do have to be lean and fast though. That's been the big turnaround in browsers, back to small screens, low memory and slow chips!

As for desktop. Still a good browser, needs one process per tab. Still good to have a compliant rendering engine besides Chrome. Still good to have privacy and security policies competing with Chrome.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 3 months ago | (#47304577)

Firefox uses Gecko, Opera and Chrome use Blink and Safari uses Webkit. That's 3 if you exclude IE.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (-1, Troll)

Threni (635302) | about 3 months ago | (#47304685)

LOL! I remember people complaining about the size of browsers. The browser IS computer usage for most people. I don't care if Chrome is a 1gig install as long as it works and is fast. Storage is cheap, bandwidth is cheap. Fast is all; lean is massively overrated, unless you're on a limited device. Show me a device where you can afford 10megs for a browser but not 100megs and i'll show you someone who needs to get a decent device.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47305053)

Do you mean 10 vs 100 gigabyte?

100 MB was a decade ago. Five years ago I upgraded my PC because Firefox would crash (out of memory) sometimes several times in a day with only 1 GB RAM.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (1)

Threni (635302) | about 3 months ago | (#47306737)

no, 10 vs 100 megs for the size of the browser.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304763)

Can't say I know the size of Google Chrome, but last Chromium build I downloaded: mini_installer-272596.exe - 32.1MB. And Opera: 26.4MB. IE11(32bit) 28.3MB. Firefox doesn't seem all that different in that aspect than other browsers.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (1)

Megane (129182) | about 3 months ago | (#47304927)

Thunderbird and Seamonkey have no paid developers.

And I hope it stays that way. That's why they haven't yet been "updated" beyond the point of usability!

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (1)

BVis (267028) | about 3 months ago | (#47304983)

Thunderbird and Seamonkey have no paid developers.

And, as a result, likely no clueless non-technical product "managers" that never met a feature they didn't like, and also never met a tech lead or developer whose objections they couldn't ignore.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304801)

Daddy hit mommy... son watched, and promised he'd NEVER act that way.

And then he grew up, had a family of his own, and then one day HE was daddy, hitting mommy, while his son watched.

Nothing new to see here, just a sad passing of the torch.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 3 months ago | (#47305947)

This does not make Firefox slower or load slower.

The only thing this does is make the download slightly larger.

These are in seperate files which don't get loaded on startup.

They first all added their own remote debug protocol:
http://remotedebug.org/specifi... [remotedebug.org]

And now people want to have a unified protocol:

http://remotedebug.org/ [remotedebug.org]

In the mean time, browser vendors like Mozilla and Chrome add the last missing piece an editor.

Nothing fancy, just something basic.

It's a natural progression.

Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 3 months ago | (#47306801)

lean has not been the goal of firefox for a long time, if you need a browser to run on your windows 95 potato, try "off by one browser" it's a ~2 megabyte install including SSL or 1.2 M without SSL, it requires about 5-10 megabytes of ram per tab depending on page size

IntelliTeams | Reliable Business Process Partners (-1, Offtopic)

intelliteams (3692951) | about 3 months ago | (#47304457)

Hi. this is a nice post :)

Developers..developers..developers.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304461)

looks good to me

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304483)

Stop adding stupid shit to firefox.

addon (1)

l3v1 (787564) | about 3 months ago | (#47304501)

If it were an add-on, I'd have nothing against it. Do not integrate unnecessary crap into the browser, history has made it clear it's not going to end well.

Nescape Composer anyone? (2)

Giorgio Maone (913745) | about 3 months ago | (#47304541)

Re:Nescape Composer anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304869)

Still alve and well in SeaMonkey. I like to use it for quick/simple html docs. And I like using SeaMonkey as a browser and email client since it has continued my email history going back to the Netscape days, and has not messed nearly so much with the familiar browser and email UI from then.

Mozilla II (5, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | about 3 months ago | (#47304579)

Mozilla.org is very quickly expanding Firefox to becoming Mozilla II. Remember when the suite was split apart into its various components, leaving Firefox a very lightweight-but-extensible browser, and Thunderbird a lean and mean yet also expandable email client, and if you still wanted the monolithic build you downloaded Mozilla instead?

Not any more. Firefox is very quickly edging its way toward becoming a heavyweight web development suite again. I think if users want that, they will either install the Web Developer extension or maybe just go straight to installing the Mozilla suite. Why are they "bloating" Firefox again instead of making the IDE an optional add-on via extensions?

Re:Mozilla II (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 3 months ago | (#47304585)

Ah, yes, Seamonkey. Someone mentioned it in comments above. I had forgotten the name of the web development component.

Re:Mozilla II (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about 3 months ago | (#47304651)

Because the people that run Mozilla seem to have no idea what Firefox users actually want. That's the only explanation I can come up with for what they've been doing.

Re:Mozilla II (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 3 months ago | (#47304729)

By getting a drunken monkey to throw darts they'd get things right more often than they do now.

Conclusion: they're doing it deliberately.

Re:Mozilla II (1)

kaiser423 (828989) | about 3 months ago | (#47305741)

It's because now, they have money. When firefox was first broken out, Mozilla was a slow, lumbering, and most importantly very lean company. They didn't have a lot of money or credibility. Firefox came out, became the darling and revenue started to flow in from the search bar, ads, donations, etc. Then they had money, and when you have money that needs spending you look for things to do. Then you end up creating FirefoxOS, webIDE, etc, etc because in big strategy meetings about what to do with this money, that's the best sounding idea. But in reality, it sucks. I'd love to come back to Firefox over Chrome, but every time I use it it really seems like the browser isn't their core product, and it shows....

Re:Mozilla II (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304815)

I think if users want that, they will either install the Web Developer extension or maybe just go straight to installing the Mozilla suite.

Actually, I think if developers want that, they will install any of the far better professional IDEs for doing this work, and eliminate Firefox from their workflow altogether, except MAYBE as a test bed.

Re:Mozilla II (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47305645)

Because the only people who use Firefox any more are web developers, and then generally for the developer tools and related extensions. Everyone else has moved on.

Firefox OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304597)

So now all that is left to convince anybody to actually use Firefox OS.

Confused by so many tools? Let's create a new one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304605)

"Developers tell us that they are not sure how to start app development on the Web, withso many different tools and templates that they need to download from a variety of different sources." So they solve it by creating yet another tool. Of course.

Re:Confused by so many tools? Let's create a new o (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 3 months ago | (#47304649)

This is not a problem in itself. The problem is when they propose to do a better tool and just end up creating a yet another very bad tool.

Re:Confused by so many tools? Let's create a new o (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#47305133)

(insert XKCD comic about standards here)

Seen them all come and go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304611)

I've seen so many IDEs come and go over the years that I am glad I can just use Emacs and have the same muscle memory for commands and typing since I started using it in 1991. I've always thought about making a list of dead development environments, but can't remember all of them. Anyone remember when BRIEF and WordStar keyboard compatibility was a selling point?

Re:Seen them all come and go (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 3 months ago | (#47304667)

I can only think of BREW because it relates to beer.

"Beer: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." - Homer Simpson.

Genius! (1)

Tridus (79566) | about 3 months ago | (#47304645)

"Developers tell us that they are not sure how to start app development on the Web, with so many different tools and templates that they need to download from a variety of different sources."

So the plan of having too many tools to do development is to create another tool? Man, that's some awesome thinking right there. Reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]

so how is this different from Microsoft? (1)

nimbius (983462) | about 3 months ago | (#47304737)

Stop. please. we tried this 20 years ago with ActiveX and it turned out to be a flaming turd that myred an entire generation in code that could only run in IE and only specific versions that supported different activeX framework.

Developers tell us that they are not sure how to start app development on the Web, with so many different tools and templates that they need to download from a variety of different sources.

I know it can be a bit overwhelming at first, but this icky feeling is called choice. things can be unique and different and thats okay, so long as they work in chrome and firefox and adhere to good coding practices like not exploiting specific browser quirks to achieve something. Also its entirely possible the web isnt the best place for you to write your "app" and thats okay too.

Re:so how is this different from Microsoft? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#47304879)

HTML, CSS and JS aren't proprietary.

Mozilla attempt to standardize any JS 'native' libraries to the w3c in collaboration with other vendors. Apache Cordova fills in the rest.

This is nothing like ActiveX.

Re:so how is this different from Microsoft? (1)

colfer (619105) | about 3 months ago | (#47305087)

Read the article, they are targeting Firefox, Chrome and Safari as platforms. This is a development tool for some reason put into core.

And the "app" does have to be a web app because this is all about mobile. They will probably integrate submitting the app to the various vendor-approved marketplaces, starting with this one: https://marketplace.firefox.co... [firefox.com]

I question all this, because Mozilla has limited resources, mainly from Google searches. But sticking with Desktop only would be risky.

Re:so how is this different from Microsoft? (1)

CrackerJackz (152930) | about 3 months ago | (#47305537)

... and if you have to download a web browser+IDE to build a "webapp" because you're "confused" about all the choices ... perhaps you should not be building a webapp in the first place?

Removed browser features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47304749)

So, this is what all those browser features got removed to make room for...

Mozilla Firefox, the new IDE. By installing a bunch of ad-ons, you can even use it as a web browser.

decouple and load dynamically with minimal impact (3, Insightful)

amn108 (1231606) | about 3 months ago | (#47305191)

I think we would all agree that code bloat goes beyond web browsers, it's a problem for every piece of software, a problem from the future, waiting to happen, somewhere there along the development timeline, when someone with insufficient life wisdom decides for yet another feature, and as features become less related to the core functionality of the original product, the code bloat becomes more of a nuisance.

Since the psychology of developers can hardly be changed fast, especially the inexperienced ones (wisdom does not equal competency here - you can contribute to libevent, but not have a clue about the kind of wisdom I am talking about), I think another solution is necessary.

This solution is to at least try to decouple the features from the core product in such a way that these do not impair loading and runtime times, can be distributed/added/removed separately and generally do not impact the core product. Dynamic library loading, etc - all these things can be used with good measure to combat perceived bloat. But we still need to educate each other on these things.

The good and related principle of high-cohesion low-coupling should also be applied.

My point is, in itself, a gazillion addons is not a problem, as long as a person not wanting one single addon can use the product to their satisfaction where mere existence of plugin/addon/dev-IDE system does not impact his experience negatively. And it shouldn't - if you can load libraries on demand, you can decouple the IDE from Firefox, so that people who never heard of it or do not want it, can live in blissful ignorance of its mere existence.

Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 3 months ago | (#47306069)

The IDE does not incur any loading time.

It is just a bunch of HTML/JS/CSS files only loaded when you open the WebIDE.

Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa (1)

amn108 (1231606) | about 3 months ago | (#47306409)

So it's basically a so called web application? Like c9.io f.e.?

Because I was under the impression that its more akin to say, Firebug.

Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 3 months ago | (#47306901)

Well, Firebug is an addon which is also written in HTML/JS/CSS.

This has always been mostly true in Firefox, Firefox is built in XUL which is an XML variant and Javascript.

An addon just has different privileges than a normal webpage.

It is just a zip-file with a different extension. Office documents like ODT and DOCX these days are also just zip-files with a different extension.

Just have a look at the code:
https://github.com/firebug/fir... [github.com]

When I was browsing through the files, just to make sure, I noticed Firebug also used the same codemirror editor:
https://github.com/firebug/fir... [github.com]

Make Firefox usable again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47305237)

The browser has become completely unusable and they keep on adding shitty features that 99% of the users won't use. Everyday i'm more convinced that i took the right decision when dumped Firefox

XUL (1)

fulldecent (598482) | about 3 months ago | (#47305267)

Hey that's cute, does anyone remember XUL from last decade?

Next: Firefox Gold (1)

CrackerJackz (152930) | about 3 months ago | (#47305441)

Anyone remember Netscape Gold? How long will we have to wait for email client, news reader, and Kitchen Sink(tm) to be bundled back in?

So much for a lightweight browser and codebase (Firefox has already marched past that line in the sand, but this is a monumental increase to the marching speed) Not to mention the potential security implications for managed desktops.

What a mess this will be... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 3 months ago | (#47305487)

A sleek, once-efficient browser has now been turned into a bloated platform for for IDE hosting. Why would anyone want to use such a mess for such a critical part of their development infrastructure, especially in light of the continuing whimsical and frequent changes to the look, feel and operation of the FireFox UI by out of touch developers.

WebGap for the AppGap Crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47306089)

The "Blinky" tag district of the Internet is open for business.. oh gawd...

Priorities (2)

alexo (9335) | about 3 months ago | (#47306383)

How many FF users want this WebIDE? It's built-in.
How many FF users want a status bar or tabs not on top? Must use an add-on...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>