Firebug lead developer now working on Web dev tools at Google

1. The console is a lot better. You aren't limited to the one line interpreter that Chrome provides.

2. Using console.log, and console.dir I get a colored DOM/JSON output. I can click the DOM element and it'll get me to the DOM/HTML tab. This is not available in Chrome. I can move the mouse over the DOM element and it'll be highlighted in the browser.

3. Add-ons: I use the jQuery and Cookies add-ons and they add a lot to the console. I can include jQuery with a click and it highlights the jQuery objects for me in the console. I can watch cookies changes from the console directly.

4. For the debugging tools, they are equal. For syntax coloring the JavaScript code, there is a Firebug add-on for that.

One of them is console.log():

  (function(){
	var obj = {};
	console.log(obj);
	obj.new_value = "hello";
	console.log(obj);
  })();

More details here: http://techblog.appnexus.com/2011/webkit-chrome-safari-conso...

It's not something I encounter often, but when I do, it's really obnoxious to have to work around it. I mean, it's console.log() ffs.

I switched to OSX 4 years ago and i hate to say it, but I found IE9 and IE10 debuggers (even ran in virtual machine) the be the most stable debugging tools. I encourage you to give it a try. It turns out, that we're living rather a miserable life trying to find tools that don't crash, and there are good tools out there. Too bad they are on the "alternative" operating system MS Windows is.

That's a workaround for a completely broken behavior.

Given that Nightly is the least stable kind of build and could have other problems along the way, we've reached a pretty good point with Firebug's compatibility.

Of course, you also have the Web Console if you're having trouble with Firebug (and I'll grant that this alone is not a replacement for Firebug!)

ObDisclaimer: I'm the product manager for devtools at Mozilla.

http://blog.getfirebug.com/2011/07/18/firebug-1-8b6/

The web console is not a replacement for firebug. its just decent built in tools.

Firebug - guess what - supports Firefox 7 and probably 8 too. And of course, Firefox 5 as well which is the latest release of Firefox btw.

It's tiring to read the large amount of FUD against Firefox lately. People like you are the major regression to the interwebs. Very seriously.

http://getfirebug.com/

These are just a few things Google has copied from Mozilla. I don't go around complaining about all the thing Google has copied from Mozilla, but the record has to be set straight, Mozilla is not following Google, they are going there own way. They implemented sandboxed Flash first and compartments which Chrome is missing.

Funny that Google haven't updated the Google toolbar.

"It doesn't take a conscious effort to make software incompatible. All you have to do is not work too hard at fixing bugs—which, if you're a big company, you produce in copious quantities. The situation is analogous to the writing of "literary theorists." Most don't try to be obscure; they just don't make an effort to be clear. It wouldn't pay." - Paul Graham http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

http://ostatic.com/blog/early-glimpse-of-firefox-8-shows-vas...

I wasn't expecting this announcement, but it's not surprising. Google is actively developing their dev tools, and Mozilla has...some exploratory experiments, with no concrete roadmap for a feature complete Firebug replacement. I still don't understand the politics behind Mozilla's decisions regarding firebug and switching to developing built-in tools (while giving token support to the firebug crew), but it was a poor one. A clean slate is great in theory, but when you alienate a community and defacto-deprecate a tool with no replacement in sight, this is exactly the kind of thing you should expect.

    function myLog() {
      if(window.console && window.console.log) {
        window.console.log(arguments)
      }
    }

I haven't experienced that behaviour, at least in the Mac version. Every machine I have was updated from v4 to v5 manually, because it didn't happen automatically.

> Mozilla also has a script that scans extensions on AMO and auto updates the versions they support if they don't detect any issues. For the majority of extensions they should keep working unless they do wired hacky things or use more advanced extension APIs.

That unfortunately characterizes many Firefox extensions. I also feel that you are downplaying the issue, I have had simple plugins have their toolbar buttons break between minor updates. The current Firefox extension system just isn't right for the times.

> Mozilla has also been downplaying the version numbers in recent announcements for Firefox updates.

> Mozilla has also overhauled the extension system with the introduction of the Add-on SDK.

That is good to hear, I wasn't aware of that. I still would have preferred it if they had dealt with these issues before switching schedules, it's not like they came out of the blue. Now we have this drawn out transition period that could have been shorter. It also remains to be seen if they'll be aggressive about migrating to this new extensions system.

It depends how you characterize "many". Many users you encounter doesn't necessarily equal many FF users. I think what the vast majority of Firefox users love about it is that it is the browser they use, and have used for a long time. In other words, their loyalty doesn't run so deep. Those are the users this move is for, those that use Firefox habitually instead of for some particular reason and could possibly switch to Chrome.

> Chrome only has "lite" versions of these tools for technical reasons (limited extension API).

Not just Chrome, but Safari & Opera as well. There is a reason for that, it's because it's the smarter way to go. Firefox's extension system is a massive cause of headaches for Mozilla. It's going to go eventually, the only question is how soon.

> So I agree that the very rapid release schedule is the problem here. It brings more problems than it solves.

Problems for you, you mean. Rapid release, seamless updates and a less invasive extension system solves big problems for Mozilla and most end users, problems that are causing them to switch to Chrome.

> Just because Google does something, does not mean it is good for everyone.

Likewise, just because devs want it doesn't mean it's worth compromising the experience for everyone else. They'll find another way, users will just find another product.