Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 15 Coming With Souped-Up, Faster Debugger

StormDriver writes "Firefox 15 has hit the Mozilla pre-beta Aurora channel, and it features a redesigned, built-in debugger." The original weblog post has more. Thanks to improved debugger internals in SpiderMonkey, supposedly code should run just as fast with debugging enabled as without (ever try loading Slashdot with firebug accidentally enabled?). There are also new tools for testing mobile layouts from the comfort of your workstation, and the debugger can attach to remote processes (Something Emacs users have enjoyed for years now, albeit in a hackish manner and without support for mobile Firefox).

29 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. ever try loading Slashdot without firebug enabled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, "Web 2.0" transforms so much otherwise perfectly functional hardware into environmentally-unfriendly junk that you might as well just stick your dick in an endangered species.

    The web ten years ago was fine: people programmed for content and efficiency. Why can't we stay that way, with the advancement being in quality and quantity of /content/?

  2. Firebug or Built in Web Console? by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Informative

    (ever try loading Slashdot with firebug accidentally enabled?)

    Yeah, it takes forever. But what is much faster is using the built in Web Console in the tools menu in newer versions of Firefox. I forget what version it was that started natively supporting debugging but it got a lot better (4 I think?). I'm very excited to see these improvements but my JavaScript has to support versions of Firefox all the way back to 3.6 so I'm still using Firebug and I'm still super grateful that Firebug came around. It literally revolutionized debugging web applications for me. There could have been tools before it but, man, that was the final nail on IE's coffin for support from us. Hell, even Chrome's built in debugging is way better than anything I can find on IE. I know the latest IE versions have gotten better but it's my strong opinion that every single person who uses the internet should be thankful for Chrome, Mozilla, Venkman and these debugging tools. They made the web experience a hell of a lot better and open by empowering developers.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Re:So in normal development by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Correct. Debugging scales down 3.8462 times when producing a final release.

  4. Debugging Is the Next Frontier in Faster Browsing by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    So why not focus on faster browsing rather than debugging ?!?

    As a web developing, most browsers (yes, even IE) have gotten to the sub millisecond rendering ranges. I mean, we're getting to the point where the browser is negligible compared to your network. Yes, you have broadband and it should be lightning fast but there are even little unavoidable delays for each GET or POST. So the next best thing is to empower developers who write the JavaScript code to be able to find out where their delays are. As debugging improves, we can even breakdown the experience and display that to the developer in the browser for each resource (images, CSS, JS, etc) on a page and then the developer can think about turning all those images into a spritesheet or improving some code. I mean, this is actually making the browsing experience faster for everybody by putting the right tools in the developer's hands. You can spend forever optimizing the backend but it doesn't mean jack squat when you're querying for 99 separate little images when the user first hits the page.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  5. Re:wait isnt it firefox 150 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Quit whining and just use the ESR release

  6. Oh shut up already. by nashv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can all these noobish people with their issue with version numbers get over it? Every Slashdot post has these idiots cribbing.

    You can disable automatic updates. Why are you whining? You don't like something called 15? Write a Greasemonkey script to display the correct version number however you want.

    All version numbers as supposed to say is which distribution came first and which came later. 15 > 14. That is all you need to know from a version number.

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    1. Re:Oh shut up already. by tapspace · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like always Opera did it first (full disclosure, I used to be a major Opera fanboy). I don't think Firefox is trying to beat anyone. Once Opera got to 10 and worked out the bugs for everyone (stupid websites were only looking at a single digit of the version number at that time, so Opera coded the UA to say something like 9.6), everyone is doing it. For some reason, the Firefox team finds this versioning best for their development process, and so be it. It doesn't really matter what the version numbers are. Web browsers are constantly being updated, regardless of version number.

    2. Re:Oh shut up already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Version numbers are also supposed to inform about possible compatibility problems.
      One would normally expect anything that works in version 1.2.3 to also work in version 1.2.4 with no adjustments whatsoever, while an upgrade to version 2.0 might entail a great deal of extra work to adapt custom scipts and plug-ins.

    3. Re:Oh shut up already. by ThePhilips · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are you whining?

      Because every minor FireFox update gets to the /. front page.

      Many people do not care. Most ex-FireFox users are still pissed that Mozilla has abandoned them. Throw in here Chrome users who dropped by to mock FireFox for being a copycat - and you have ideal mix for a minor flamewar.

      You don't like something called 15?

      You miss the point of software having the version number at all. FireFox version numbers are useless, because it is a rolling release strategy. And for example I personally do not like being an alpha tester for a piece of software which I use mostly for business purposes.

      That is all you need to know from a version number.

      Let me tell you an old story. Long long time ago, when Facebook was called MySpace and Google was still good, version numbers were also used to indicate stability of the software. E.g. version 2.2 was literally the same as version 2.1, but with less bugs. People could, for example, wait for software to stabilize sufficiently, for relevant bugs to be fixed, and then use it, expecting no nasty surprises at every possible turn.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    4. Re:Oh shut up already. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > All version numbers as supposed to say is which distribution came first and which came later.

      Actually, you're missing the point. I can tell you have never had to support an existing corporate infrastructure that just can not upgrade to the "latest bleeding edge" because they don't have the resources to test everything possible code path to tell what broke, what works, etc.

      The current numbering schema in FF is a "revision" number. Originally Version numbers conveyed EXTRA information. It lets users know about compatibility / bugs because it denotes which branch the code is in. Let's give a practical example using a fictional language 'Gem'.

      If I'm working with Gem v5.x I can (reasonably) expect those features (and bugs) to be relatively consistent no matter if I'm with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, etc. If I switch to Gem 6.x the developer may have switched to a completely different (source control code) branch which may also be a completely different implementation. As an user, I may not like it, but I can stick with the old (stable) version until the new version gets the kinks worked out AND when I have the time and resources to properly test the new version before deploying it.

      If the developer instead has used a relative numbering schema, aka, revisions, like
      * rev 4
      * rev 5
      * rev 6
      * rev 7
      * rev 8
      * rev 9
      * rev 10

      How do I *easily* tell when

      a) features were added? and,
      b) features deprecated? and
      c) features removed?

      Yes, you still can tell this with a relative revision number but it is easier to manage the complexity with the traditional hybrid version.revision numbers.

      The Mozilla team switching their focus to hyper-inflate their version number because they are trying to play some marketing game with Chrome tells me that they are no longer focused on building a great product -- their priorities are all fucked up. i.e. How many more versions do we have to go before they _finally_ fix the dam memory leak??

    5. Re:Oh shut up already. by ThePhilips · · Score: 2, Funny

      The ONLY point of version numbering is to IDENTIFY THE BUILD

      If you happen to be a software developer, then I pity your customers. Amen.

      Or you are one of those types who deliver "guaranteed bug free" (c)(tm) software?

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    6. Re:Oh shut up already. by MSG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you're missing the point. I can tell you have never had to support an existing corporate infrastructure that just can not upgrade to the "latest bleeding edge" because they don't have the resources to test everything possible code path to tell what broke, what works, etc.

      I think you're missing the point. Mozilla hasn't changed the way version numbers work.

      Because of demand from those corporate types, Mozilla now provides extended support releases. Both those and the standard releases use the widely recognised major.minor.patch versioning numbers. The current mainline release is 13.0.1, which is a patch update to version 13.

      Everything you used to learn from version numbers, you still do. The difference is that each new release introduces fewer new features (which makes it more stable!), and releases happen more quickly.

      The alternative is infrequent releases with many significant changes which haven't been widely tested. This is exactly what makes those .0 release something that users avoid. Making numerous major changes simultaneously drastically increases the amount of testing required. Users are going to find bugs under either release strategy, but with fewer new features per release, the number of bugs they'll find is drastically reduced, and typically so is the impact of those bugs.

      But more important in my mind is this: The slow-release system is a symptom of the software sales revenue model. Businesses drive revenue by bundling up new features until there's enough to make a sales pitch. Users who buy a release get only bug fixes to that release, and no guarantee that all of the bugs will be addressed. Very often, buying the current version is the only way to get a bug fix. In Free Software, we don't have to deal with that garbage. The vendor isn't trying to sell us each upgrade, so they don't need to hold back new features.

      The current numbering schema in FF is a "revision" number

      No, it isn't. It's the same as it used to be.

      How do I *easily* tell when
      a) features were added? and,
      b) features deprecated? and
      c) features removed?

      The same way you always have: by checking the release notes. There's no additional complexity.

      How many more versions do we have to go before they _finally_ fix the dam memory leak??

      Firefox has been repeatedly demonstrated to use less memory than Chrome, for a long time. Chrome's advantages have been in a somewhat faster JavaScript engine and faster startup/new tab time. Firefox has a better plugin API (AdBlock can prevent advertisements from being loaded rather than merely preventing them from being displayed) and lower memory use. I prefer Firefox.

  7. Re:bloated RAM usage by Cyko_01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes they did. There was a benchmark story in slasdot a little while ago. It is as good as or better then chrome

  8. Re:Um... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    While you may be right when it comes to a lot of other features few people need, I think an efficient, deeply integrated debugger isn't really something you can easily separate from the Javascript engine.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  9. Re:So in normal development by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    I felt the same way, but then realized that "Firefox" is now the main version number much like OSX is more or less stuck at 10 forever.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  10. Re:So in normal development by Idbar · · Score: 2

    Well, if it makes you happy, what about you just put the number after the three, so you don't have to worry about those things?

    Lets call this one 3.15.0.

  11. Re:Firefox? by Cyko_01 · · Score: 2

    It makes a lot of sense actually. New features are actually getting MORE testing and are getting released to the public SOONER.

  12. Re:So in normal development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That would defeat the purpose of being worried about something that makes perfect sense just because the number changes too much, and then you can't use that as an excuse to ridicule Firefox on every new release post while totally ignoring the fact that Chrome started the trend in the first place because it just makes sense.

    So no, you can't ask mwfisher not to be a totally retarded fuckerlord. That would be against his soul's purpose.

  13. Re:wait isnt it firefox 150 ? by ThePhilips · · Score: 2

    Are mere mortals already allowed to use it? Last time I checked, they required some sort of registration.

    Though from what I was reading up on it, the ESR doesn't make much sense: a random FireFox release is given the "ESR" moniker with purpose of providing only security fixes for it. If the random FireFox version happens to be totally borked and unusable, security fixes alone wouldn't help much.

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  14. Firefox ESR by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 2

    You can disable automatic updates.

    Right. Plus, you could try the Firefox ESR (Extended Support Release) version, which is supported for the not quite long-term period of one year. It won't shut up the high-version numbers but it would allow you to skip from, say, version 10 to 15+ or whatever version comes a year after the initial release of the current ESR.

  15. Re:ever try loading Slashdot without firebug enabl by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Informative

    The web 10 years ago was not fine. People were still supporting Netscape 4, which in practical terms meant that everybody was stuck with inaccessible, inefficient, inflexible table layouts that had to transmit style information for every page load. Mobile websites were practically nonexistent; where they did exist, it was a severely cut-back version. Using a single responsive design to cater to desktop and mobile uses would have been impractical even assuming today's mobile hardware. Lots of JavaScript was essentially written twice - once for Netscape and once for Internet Explorer, because the various DHTML and layout methods were different and incompatible. Netscape transcoded from CSS to JSSS internally, and lots of websites only supported Internet Explorer on Windows - a single browser on a single platform, both by the same corporation.

    From a content point of view, it was still difficult to produce and manage content. Anything beyond basic stuff usually involved a very limited CMS and writing code. The "WYSIWYG" editors generated terrible, inefficient code that often only worked in one browser. Security was far worse than it is now, developers were largely clueless about even the most basic vulnerabilities, and things like the PCI standard weren't put in place yet.

    These days, people are paying more and more attention to content because the technology is largely at a point where they can. Consider YouTube, Wordpress or Facebook - people generating content at phenomenal rates. Efficiency is still a prime concern due to mobile browsing, and techniques such as CSS, caching and CDNs have improved efficiency immensely. User-empowering features such as user stylesheets, user JavaScript and add-ons have grown into a thriving ecosystem, and accessibility support continues to grow.

    Ten years ago was a really low point for the web. It lacked the client diversity that came before it, it was rife with incompatibilities and the inefficient designs necessary to compensate for them, and it lacked the compatibility and accessibility that mostly came afterwards. In all of the history of the web, that is probably the one point I'd least like to be stuck in.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  16. Re:wait isnt it firefox 150 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
  17. Re:So in normal development by silanea · · Score: 2

    [...] so my company can actually use firefox?

    What is stopping you from doing just that?

    --
    Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
  18. Feature better targeted at Seamonkey by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 2

    Really, if developers are the audience why not just farm out this feature to the Seamonkey communication suite, the direct descendant of the Mozilla kitchensink browser + email client + HTML editor, etc. Wasn't the goal of Firefox to become the original speed browser by throwing out all the non-web features of the Mozilla dinosaur?

  19. Re:Debugging Is the Next Frontier in Faster Browsi by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From my (totally unscientific) observation, most of the page load time is due to every page requesting crap from 10 different ad networks and trackers, which are inevitably overloaded. You can optimize the pages you serve all you want, but this may be a case where developers need to adjust the attitude of the commercial people involved instead.

  20. No more bloated RAM usage (unlike Chrome) by anared · · Score: 2

    Firefox RAM usage is a lot lower than Chromes actually, theyve done a good job making the browser more efficient. Firefox is faster as well, except for some hiccups here and there. Soon they will go ahead of Chrome, I dont know what changed, maybe its the new release cycle everyone is whining about on this page, but theyve done a good job with it.

  21. Re:bloated RAM usage by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    except in the real world, that isn't true, just in somebodies "benchmark"

    Except in the real world, Firefox has been running for three weeks on this machine with about 20 tabs open and it's using a whole 320MB of RAM. That still seems a lot, but it's a tiny fraction of the available RAM.

  22. Re:So in normal development by bsane · · Score: 2

    Under OSX it installs an update deamon without asking. Its separate from Chrome and stays there until you explicitly look for it and remove or disable it. Deleting Chrome has no affect, the update daemon just continues to run sending who knows what back to google every hour.

    Want to update for me? Fine, do it in the app, don't start up processes I don't know about that will run forever even if I decide to ditch Chrome.

    Finding that was my last experience with Chrome.

  23. Another big thing coming in FF 15 by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

    This is when the bulk of the MemShrink work will land, which should make a lot of people very happy. To see what they've been working on, check this site out: http://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/