Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Introduces Browser-Based WebIDE

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.

132 comments

  1. Yes! Youtube video! HTML5! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    thanks

    1. Re: Yes! Youtube video! HTML5! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re: Yes! Youtube video! HTML5! by carys689 · · Score: 1

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

      That's a dumb remark. That's like calling people "dumb" because they can call themselves "programmers" because they use a compiler like C or C++ or Clojure or Lisp, etc. instead of coding in an assembly language!!

  2. IPE by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, the inner platform effect at its finest.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:IPE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But does it run Emacs?

    2. Re:IPE by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:IPE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:IPE by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      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. :)

    5. Re:IPE by Megane · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re: IPE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!

    7. Re:IPE by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:IPE by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:IPE by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Damn. "finds", "deserves".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re: IPE by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:IPE by OakDragon · · Score: 1

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

    12. Re: IPE by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    13. Re: IPE by Tridus · · Score: 1

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

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    14. Re: IPE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    15. Re:IPE by Wootery · · Score: 1

      You could say that of any cross-platform GUI toolkit, but it doesn't mean they're useless.

    16. Re:IPE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can read mail...

    17. Re:IPE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original definition from The Daily WTF

      The Inner-Platform Effect is a result of designing a system to be so customizable that it ends becoming a poor replica of the platform it was designed with. This "customization" of this dynamic inner-platform becomes so complicated that only a programmer (and not the end user) is able to modify it.

      Clearly this is NOT an inner platform for creating a browser. It's an IDE for making websites or an "app".

    18. Re: IPE by spazzmo · · Score: 1

      Binary blogs would be a bit hard to read...

      --
      The cheese stands alone...
    19. Re:IPE by davester666 · · Score: 1

      No, it's written as an emacs script.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    20. Re:IPE by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --This. Yet more reason to switch to Palemoon, since I neither want nor need a full development IDE in my freaking daily web browser. It's code bloat, and the vast majority of users DO NOT NEED it.

      --Mozilla should be make this a separate download/package. Things are continuing to go downhill after Australis...

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  3. So YouTube example is your own XXX app? by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:So YouTube example is your own XXX app? by jones_supa · · Score: 1, Funny

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

    2. Re:So YouTube example is your own XXX app? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

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

      You're one X short of a pint Cobber!

  4. Bloat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the History of Firefox Wikipedia article:

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

  5. Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Bloat !!!!! by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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???

    3. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox devs WTF are you trying to do???

      Everything.

    4. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    5. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    7. Re:Bloat !!!!! by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      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".

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    8. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, when do they anticipate to merge with systemd?

    10. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Tridus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    11. Re:Bloat !!!!! by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    12. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Megane · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    13. Re:Bloat !!!!! by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      >>> 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? :-)

    14. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right after the merge with svchost.exe

    15. Re:Bloat !!!!! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

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

    16. Re:Bloat !!!!! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re:Bloat !!!!! by NotInHere · · Score: 2

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

    18. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right after systemd swallowed the borg (microsoft).

    19. Re:Bloat !!!!! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    21. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Lennie · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    22. Re:Bloat !!!!! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

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

    23. Re:Bloat !!!!! by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Exactly. But per usual, all the trolls are bashing Firefox WITHOUT THINKING. Almost as if they were payed shills of corporations

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    24. Re:Bloat !!!!! by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      That would have been an AWESEOME tricycle when I was a kid......I'd have been the envy of my whole neighborhood (and probably some nearby neighborhoods, too).

    25. Re:Bloat !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. But how much of extra work would it have cost them to keep eg. option to close tab bar when one tab is open? Not much, but they chose to remove that option. But at same time the web dev tools are included and they are in some special protection from the stupid UX-designers urge for feature removal.

    26. Re:Bloat !!!!! by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Firefox *really* needs forking to follow the original vision.

      Already attempted. Try PaleMoon. http://www.palemoon.org/

  6. Emacs support by torsmo · · Score: 0

    You don't support Emacs. Emacs supports you!

  7. Antitrust...? by beaverdownunder · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Antitrust...? by colfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Antitrust...? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Antitrust...? by Lennie · · Score: 1

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

      You probably missed what Mozilla is about.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  8. RIP firefox, lean and fast by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by colfer · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    5. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by Megane · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by BVis · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    7. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by Lennie · · Score: 1

      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...

      And now people want to have a unified protocol:

      http://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.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    9. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by Threni · · Score: 1

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

    10. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    11. Re:RIP firefox, lean and fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genetics is a bitch.

  9. Developers..developers..developers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks good to me

  10. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop adding stupid shit to firefox.

  11. addon by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  12. Nescape Composer anyone? by Giorgio+Maone · · Score: 2
    --
    There's a browser safer than Firefox, it is Firefox, with NoScript
    1. Re:Nescape Composer anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

  13. Mozilla II by kimvette · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Mozilla II by kimvette · · Score: 1

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

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Mozilla II by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    3. Re:Mozilla II by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Mozilla II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    5. Re:Mozilla II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    6. Re:Mozilla II by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      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....

    7. Re:Mozilla II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. The real problem is that their userbase is fragmented and doesn't know what it wants. And worse, each user thinks of themselves as representative of the whole userbase. When you dislike them not focusing on your pet bugs, of course you'll gripe and feel like they're ignoring you. And then you'll act entitled when people point out that you're just a user, and not doing much to help Firefox, and try to justify your attitude with the excuse that Mozilla is a business, treating them just like any other uncaring corporation. It's a well-trodden road.

    8. Re:Mozilla II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I see. The more you say nonsense, the more true it becomes. I think I'm finally old enough to understand how geeks respond when they don't want to participate in things, and they don't turn out the way they want them to!

    9. Re:Mozilla II by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How does that justify taking functionality - that was already there and working fine- away? How does it justify changing things just for the sake of changing them?

      Stop and ask yourself this question: "What's the problem that I'm trying to solve?" If you can't answer that, or the best you can come up with is "it's the wrong colour" then it's probably best to leave it the fuck alone.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. Firefox OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  15. Confused by so many tools? Let's create a new one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "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.

  16. You might be mistaken. by SpzToid · · Score: 1

    You might very well be mistaken. XXX 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/...

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  17. Seen them all come and go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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?

    1. Re:Seen them all come and go by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 1

      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.

  18. Genius! by Tridus · · Score: 1

    "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/

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Genius! by superflippy · · Score: 1

      There are many arguments against adding the IDE, but I don't agree with this one. People said the same thing when Google came out with Gmail. "We've already got hotmail and yahoo and a million other free email services. Why do we need another?" If this tool is good enough or simple enough to use that it becomes ubiquitous, then it doesn't matter what's already out there.

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
  19. Re:Confused by so many tools? Let's create a new o by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  20. Only pussies use Emacs ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... real tough guys use debug.com

  21. so how is this different from Microsoft? by nimbius · · Score: 1
    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.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:so how is this different from Microsoft? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:so how is this different from Microsoft? by colfer · · Score: 1

      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...

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

    3. Re:so how is this different from Microsoft? by CrackerJackz · · Score: 1

      ... 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?

    4. Re:so how is this different from Microsoft? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      You gotta start from somewhere. In the 90s if you did not know bettter (and likely had no internet access) you ended up playing with QBASIC, old Visual Basic and such. And fuck, yes a "webapp" is confusing, what with needing to learn like five language to create simple crap (PHP [or other], Javascript, HTML, CSS and whatever, not to mention the kilometer long config file if you install Apache)
      Add paying for a server and a domain name.. that shit costs recurrent cash to pay by debit card or paypal? Fuck it.
      On the other hand a little "web" IDE that's either bundled or easily accessible from most PC I find myself on and that is just made for the purpose (rather than an Eclipse clone or than just a text editor), maybe that'll encourage some people who will be perfectly capable of writing simple and useful or funny stuff but didn't want to touch all that shit with a pole yet.

  22. Removed browser features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  23. Re:Confused by so many tools? Let's create a new o by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    (insert XKCD comic about standards here)

  24. decouple and load dynamically with minimal impact by amn108 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  25. Make Firefox usable again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  26. XUL by fulldecent · · Score: 1

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

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  27. Next: Firefox Gold by CrackerJackz · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. What a mess this will be... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    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.

  29. At the current versioning rate... by gwolf · · Score: 1

    Firefox 3000 should arrive no later than Summer 2016.

  30. Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa by Lennie · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  31. WebGap for the AppGap Crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  32. Priorities by alexo · · Score: 2

    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...

    1. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more about what the actual people working on Firefox want to do. If you're not helping, then you'll have to deal with whatever they give us. Either be happy that they're still building a product you can extend the way you like it, or actually put your money where your mouth is and help them out. No, saying they're making money isn't an excuse. How much are the people who want tabs-on-top contributing to Firefox compared to the people actually coding these features? Not a lot, just negativitiy. Hell, a good number of them also proudly harp on about all the tricks they're using that only ensure Mozilla gets no revenue from them, because their privacy is more important to them than helping Mozilla. It's all about feeling entitled; when your pet feature isn't added, you'll cry about it. But you won't lift a finger, because "it's not my job to do what I want done".

    2. Re:Priorities by alexo · · Score: 1

      Oh, lookie, an anonymous coward got her panties in a bunch.

      Firstly, Mozilla's business model is not my problem. It was their decision to give out Firefox for free.

      Secondly, if Mozilla apparently wants people to use their browser, they should be thanking me for pointing out how to make it more popular. If they don't, they're on the right track. Not my problem, though.

      Thirdly, there are alternatives. So far I still have a slight preference for FF, but my usage of Chrome is rising and even IE11 is proving to be usable.

      Fourthly, while I regularly donate to projects that I find useful, I always do it after the fact, knowing that my money will go toward making the product more useful. So far Mozilla hasn't given me any indication that that would be the case. Until that changes, Mozilla will not see a red cent from me. Aris, on the other hand...

      Lastly, grow up.

  33. Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa by amn108 · · Score: 1

    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.

  34. Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa by Lennie · · Score: 1

    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...

    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...

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  35. Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa by amn108 · · Score: 1

    Then I just hope they don't bundle it with Firefox, so that people who just want the [simple] browser, do not have to download code their computer will probably never run. And if it does, it can download on demand, since it is an addon, just like the rest of them.

  36. Ed is the standard text editor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla should abstain temptations and prefer the standard editor.

  37. Web IDE by c0d3r · · Score: 1

    I implemented a web ide, but don't know how to get it out there.

    http://tty.wanfear.com/~mbrito/WebBuilder.html

  38. VB6 IDE by phorm · · Score: 1

    Much as I hate VBCode, the old VB IDE was actually fairly nice for designing simple interfaces. If I could find something similar to make useful applications in a cross-platform manner, I'd be happy to use it. I think the closest might be the Netbeans IDE, but that's still somewhat of a PITA compared to the old VB'ish interface.

    1. Re:VB6 IDE by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I miss too. Okay, VB is bad to deal with threads (is possible, just not simple), is slow compared to C and have several other small defects. But having said that, so far I have not seen a better IDE to build simple and complex graphical interfaces, I had easy access to COM/ActiveX objects and if I really needed, is reasonably simple to deal directly with the Win32 API.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:VB6 IDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow! just what I’ve been looking for. Thanks.

  39. Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa by Lennie · · Score: 1

    A few 100kb out of a 25MB+ download, I doubt anyone cares.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  40. Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa by amn108 · · Score: 1

    Not really no, but it's sloppy thinking nevertheless. Take the things that not even half of the people will use, out of the download file.

    Some people download on cellular networks and pay per megabyte downloaded, and in any case you cannot predict everybodys usage patterns.

    Bottomline - it's a web browser, not an operating system bundled with applications. Just my two cents. I know they are going to make one out of Firefox anyway.

    Someone said already - its the inner platform effect. Reinventing the [inferior] wheel.

  41. zawinski's law of software by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

    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.

    "Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can."

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  42. Re:decouple and load dynamically with minimal impa by Lennie · · Score: 1

    In this case, the browser already had all the parts and pieces. Because of remote debugging API, the developer tools and so on. So an editor was just a small step.

    Judging by the article summary. They wanted to offer something which was easily discoverable.

    That is all there is too it. Nothing more, nothing less.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  43. ... not new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks an aweful lot like cloud9....

    https://c9.io/

  44. Isn't it what geeks should wish for? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    I mean, on this site people used to rant that in good old days every computer user was a programmer or at the very least had easy access to programming tools (by e.g. turning the computer on), such as Commodore 64 with all its PEEKs and POKEs (thick paper manual included), or how you would write an assembler from machine language when you didn't run out of bits, Hypercard on the Macintosh, the oft ridiculed Qbasic, and other examples.

    Some of these were good, some of these sucked but at least noobs and unsupecting users could get some results, even if just toying around.
    If we get one new "default" coding platform, isn't that a good thing? (Google developed a similar thing, too)
    No, a python shell in every Ubuntu/Mint/Debian isn't the same, nor coding stdio.h applications in the console. You could as well say Windows comes with development tools because there's the Windows Scripting Host.
    Coding some web stuff in notepad is doable, but do you really want to do that?
    About the browser itself, it is too late. Back in the days of Firefox 3.0 and Chrome 1, the browser-as-a-platform was already there and the good old days of static HTML and .wmv or realplayer streaming were behind us. And I would hate to go back to FF 3.0 : it was slower and crashed more and leaked more, as amazing as that reads.