codinghorror.com— "Although I prefer IE7's native speed and feel for day-to-day browsing chores, there's no doubt that Firefox is my primary web development IDE."
Apr 5, 2007View in Crawl 4
Live HTTP Headers is nice, but Firebug already has that functionality built in (under the 'Net' tab). Firebug is indeed awesome. The vulnerability found, not so, but it was swiftly fixed.
Finally someone admited it and wasnt burried.FF = Great Browser, lots of extensions that make web development a breeze, at the expense of memory hog.IE = Fast and insecure (cut the crap about integrated/preloaded into the OS, its not.)Opera = Fast, feature rich, memory efficient, amongst the 3, the only one that passes ACID2 test, no extensions.Thats all there is to it. 3 tools, each one to be used and chosen to best suit your task.
I get burried because what I said obviously make no sense at all. Its all a lie. There is no such thing as the right tool for the job, firefox is the chosen one.
@kevinbose, you must be the kind of programmer who focuses on the technology and completely fails to understand the business requirements. For those of us who can manage the software development life cycle from analysis to design to implementation to deployment and sustainment, you would be considered the flunky.
Firebug, ColorZilla and the dev tool bar are among the best extensions that i have used within Firefox. Firefox is truly the web deveolpers browser of choice.
Any web developer worth their salt knows how to take their head out of their asses and understands that 70% of their target audience is using IE, and rather than complain about gets their s**t to work with it.Good, resourcefull web developers know how to use .htc files to translate unsupported CSS into something IE understands. Once you've got the initial .htc, it's just a case of linking it in the stylesheet.Furthermore, any web developer whose built more than a single website is capable of learning and adapting. That is to say, once you know what works and what doesn't work, you don't need to "hack up" your css, since you already know that "hey, it'll work if I do this this way, instead, AND it'll validate. It really isn't all that difficult to code XHTML STRICT and valid CSS2.1 and have it work in IE, any webdev who claims otherwise isn't doing their job properly. The onlt catches are semantic ones. IE doesn't handle application-html/xml as the doctype on XHTML (strict) documents, (but using text/html still validates) and using an .htc file will cause otherwise validating css not to validate. It's a small tradeoff considering every other browser just ignores the .htc file anyway. Furthermore, any webdev worth their salt knows that IE7 and later default to compatability/quirks (because there are more people still using IE6 than you realise, plus legacy intranet application built around IE6 still need to work), unless you specify a strict doctype. In which case, as mentioned above, Trident has no problem rendering strict xhtml 1.0/html 4.01.And about Opera lacking features? Are you serious? What, a a browser has to have features inplemented as third party extensions to be noticed? Here's a hint, a good portion of firefox extensions are inspired from functionality built into Opera. Furthermore, anything not already built in to Opera is availible as a widget (which is the same as an extension, expect under a different name, and not written in Xul).
grimboyApr 6, 2007
Live HTTP Headers is nice, but Firebug already has that functionality built in (under the 'Net' tab). Firebug is indeed awesome. The vulnerability found, not so, but it was swiftly fixed.
speedApr 7, 2007
1. Java apps are some of the slowest pieces of s**t I've ever used.2. Without web developers you wouldn't be trolling right now.
cablitoApr 7, 2007
Finally someone admited it and wasnt burried.FF = Great Browser, lots of extensions that make web development a breeze, at the expense of memory hog.IE = Fast and insecure (cut the crap about integrated/preloaded into the OS, its not.)Opera = Fast, feature rich, memory efficient, amongst the 3, the only one that passes ACID2 test, no extensions.Thats all there is to it. 3 tools, each one to be used and chosen to best suit your task.
cablitoApr 8, 2007
I get burried because what I said obviously make no sense at all. Its all a lie. There is no such thing as the right tool for the job, firefox is the chosen one.
shitthisfookApr 8, 2007
These extensions are so f**king awesome. I wish I knew of them before. *Cries tears of joy*
fcekuahdApr 10, 2007
@kevinbose, you must be the kind of programmer who focuses on the technology and completely fails to understand the business requirements. For those of us who can manage the software development life cycle from analysis to design to implementation to deployment and sustainment, you would be considered the flunky.
pfwdApr 14, 2007
Firebug, ColorZilla and the dev tool bar are among the best extensions that i have used within Firefox. Firefox is truly the web deveolpers browser of choice.
pedershkApr 20, 2007
Wasn't aware of Firebug, thanks for that. Now replaced my Web Developer toolbar :)
seelenschmerzDec 20, 2008
Any web developer worth their salt knows how to take their head out of their asses and understands that 70% of their target audience is using IE, and rather than complain about gets their s**t to work with it.Good, resourcefull web developers know how to use .htc files to translate unsupported CSS into something IE understands. Once you've got the initial .htc, it's just a case of linking it in the stylesheet.Furthermore, any web developer whose built more than a single website is capable of learning and adapting. That is to say, once you know what works and what doesn't work, you don't need to "hack up" your css, since you already know that "hey, it'll work if I do this this way, instead, AND it'll validate. It really isn't all that difficult to code XHTML STRICT and valid CSS2.1 and have it work in IE, any webdev who claims otherwise isn't doing their job properly. The onlt catches are semantic ones. IE doesn't handle application-html/xml as the doctype on XHTML (strict) documents, (but using text/html still validates) and using an .htc file will cause otherwise validating css not to validate. It's a small tradeoff considering every other browser just ignores the .htc file anyway. Furthermore, any webdev worth their salt knows that IE7 and later default to compatability/quirks (because there are more people still using IE6 than you realise, plus legacy intranet application built around IE6 still need to work), unless you specify a strict doctype. In which case, as mentioned above, Trident has no problem rendering strict xhtml 1.0/html 4.01.And about Opera lacking features? Are you serious? What, a a browser has to have features inplemented as third party extensions to be noticed? Here's a hint, a good portion of firefox extensions are inspired from functionality built into Opera. Furthermore, anything not already built in to Opera is availible as a widget (which is the same as an extension, expect under a different name, and not written in Xul).
seelenschmerzDec 20, 2008
You're finally getting it :P