1. @chris mills/opera: I assume a javascript profiler is one of the
things that will be included (in time) in the toolkit, correct?

This is on the list of things to be included eventually yes, although it might not make it for the very first release.

2. Also,
will the tool itself be extensible? I know firebug (not firefox) has
extensions of its own.

This is not currently planned, but the current plan is to make the tool freely modifiable by users, and we would certainly be open to including extensions that looked worthwhile.

3. @chris mills: Will the dev tools give us the strange debug-y
internal cryptic errors like Firefox throws? Just curious how far the
debugging will go.

We can guarantee that you won’t get the same specific errors as Firebug gives you We can’t guarantee that the tool will be totally free of bugs, but we are working on reducing them as much as possible before it is made public, and we will make an effort to make sure they are as uncryptic as possible.

4. @chris mills: As I understand it, there is an internal-only script
that makes the dev tools section of opera:config work. Will this
script be released with the dev tools or will the tools supercede the
script?

I’m not really sure what you are referring to here. The debugger will be a script, but all other scripts willl be locked away inside the core of the browser.

5. @chris mills: Is your team responsible for the error console and the
source viewer as well. Neither have been improved upon in a very long
time. Any plans for that? Will the dev tools bring improvements for
those as well?

The error console will be improved upon for certain, but I’m not sure about the source viewer. Are you talking about improving the right/ctrl-click > Source functionality? The dev tools won’t really have a connection to that, although they will have their own source viewing functionality.

“The way that Opera is put togheter makes it a good plattform for developing Opera futher(they can use a lot of web-stuff basicly) and for more advanved users it means endless customization.” — TLZ
Really? Endless customization? You can’t even put the address bar above the tab bars or create new bars. You can’t create custom status fields. There are lots of things I’d like to do that are impossible with Opera’s current setup. I think Firefox is more of a platform because of all the things you can do and change and build upon. Without extensions or some other similar interface, Opera’s customizationability is and will be limited. I’d like to add custom status fields and log XHR requests and validate the html of a page in-line every time it loads and display the results in a custom field with popup text to give me details. I don’t know how to do that in Opera. Thats the kind of customizing freedom I’d like. (example)

@lite: Widgets are on the main bar and there are lots of mail related entries in the menus (screenshot).There are also rss and widget icons in the address bar.

And now for the important stuff.
@chris mills: Will the dev tools give us the strange debug-y internal cryptic errors like Firefox throws? Just curious how far the debugging will go.

All those “extras” are hidden by default already. Look at the default UI. Notice anything not related to browsing there (unless you start digging through the menus, where you can find one mail item which is there in other browsers too)?

To be honest I don’t expect you to beat Firebug at first, but you seem to have something far better than what’s currently avaible in works. This is really good. Also, the proxy thing seems like a interesting new thing, I don’t think anyone else have anything like it. Glad to see that you’re putting effort into making it fast/light, as much as I love Firebug it can be quite heavy from time to time.

btw. I love Opera’s abilitity to change source, would be awesome to do this with CSS as well as the main page source. (Doesen’t need to do it the same way as Firebug, although I wouldn’t mind that either.)

GT500: I find sites that was coded by Mozille fanboys to work quite well in Opera as Mozilla fanboys tend to care about webstandards.

btw. Why does there always errupt this Firefox vs. Opera war in here? They are both excellent browsers, but with different target groups, different strength/weaknesses. I’m glad we have both. (Can’t say too much about Safari, haven’t tried it enough.)

I know I sound way to ideological for such a practical thing as the web now but: I see Firefox and Safari as Opera’s allies. They are -like Opera- browsers that do *sincerely* care about webstandards.

About the Lite version
I user to push getting a Lite-version, untill I read a bit about how Opera works. Now they do call Opear Web Browser, but they do also often call it a Web Suite. And none is wrong really, cause Opera is both.

Opera builds on the same idea ‘ol Netscape and Mozilla(Now Seamonkey) did. A Internet Suite Software. A program that does all the most commong internet tasks. Now you may say that is a bit to much for one program, and I can understand Firefox users pushing this Lite thing since they “experienced” theyr browser(Mozilla) getting a heap faster and better once they moved away from the Internet Suite idea. However, I think they are being unfair here. In contrast to Mozilla(Seamonkey), Opera got the Internet Suite thing working, without being extremely bloated. (I can’t say that todays Seamonkey is all bad, I haven’t really tested it, but I remember Mozilla was slow.) A lot of it makes sense when you think about it. A mail client will always need a HTML rendering engine. Having a RSS-reader in your browser is conveniant, logical. (And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesen’t FF also have this?) For their IRC-client they are actually using their HTML engine as well. The way that Opera is put togheter makes it a good plattform for developing Opera futher(they can use a lot of web-stuff basicly) and for more advanved users it means endless customization. (And if they make some of this stuff more userfriendly they can expose this to less advanced users as well.) The only thing I think Opera doesen’t need is the Bittorrent. I guess they could make a Lite Mode for Opera, you could install Opera as Lite and the shortcut would be something like “Opera.exe -lite”. This would hide all the extras, and I don’t think anyone would notice the difference between that and a “true” Lite. (Except size-difference on the program-file.)

No answer of course.

The result is that his “forced” argument loses merit because everything is “forced” and therefore that’s just the way it is, and even Opera Lite would “force” things on people. So would he want Opera to create an Opera Lite Lite just for him with exactly the features he wants and nothing else?

Opera Lite would be a waste of resources because it doesn’t achieve anything you can’t achieve without it.

Not long ago, a website had a review of O9.25, where the reviewer claimed that Kestrel was bloated.. I wrote him a respons, asking:

Could anyone tell me HOW Opera is bloated? (And this is connected to the request for an “Opera Lite”)

1) Download size?? Opera has a download size of 4/4.6 megabytes, which is about 1MB less than Firefox.. Not bloated!!

2) Speed? Although results may vary from computer to computer, Opera is one of the fastest - maybe THE fastest - browser out there.. Not really, bloated, is it?

3) RAM/CPU? Yep, some people have problems with Opera using 100%CPU, but such problems also appear with Firefox (read forums). In an “unproblematic” install, Opera is not resource-demanding at all.. Not bloated!!

4) Interface? Well - my Opera interface (standard) is not more bloated than any Firefox-interface, actually it leaves more space for my “internet-window” than any of my other prowsers in standard mode - and I still can remove any buttons and/or toolbars that I want. Not bloated!!

.. As far as I can judge, none of the “extra” functions - notes, mail client, torrent download - do not have any noticable impact on Size, Speed, Interface (you can ignore it if you don’t need it…), or resources.. So, from my point of view, WHY this need for a lite version? “Because I don’t need these functions, and I never asked for it”.. I can’t understand why these functions can’t be just ignored, as I don’t understand how anything in Opera would benefit from them disappearing. Even more, as some posters (not necc. here) almost make it clear they will never use O anyway, then why??

HOSTILITY..
W2 never answered me why he writes his posts here. He doesn’t have to, of course, he has a full right to post! Still.. There are many browsers that I do NOT like at all.. Now, why should I spend so much time on their forums, yelling at how bad their browser is, how I will NEVER use it, and how fast their company will disappear. That would just be sad!! I will never be hostile to freeware, unless it is a threath or a scam! Some (I said SOME!!) of the posts here seem so thoroughly negative that I just don’t understand the reason.. And it DOES make ME hostile! Now, some posts are critical and point out flaws and problems.. GREAT! Although I still don’t understand the reason for any “LITE” version

Sorry for writing so much.. I’ll keep it short for the next posts, as I hopefully have made my point

You are “forced” to download the bookmarks feature, extensions framework (XUL is extremely bloated), Places feature, live bookmarks feature, etc.

I don’t consider bookmarks to really be a feature but a requirement for a gui-based browser. Live bookmarks sound like an advanced/improved type of bookmarks. The other things I can agree with. I don’t even know what the “Places feature” is. I’m not a firefox user but a firebug user. Are any of the included firefox features outside the realm of browsing the web? This is a serious quesiton since I don’t know about every firefox feature. Regardless, Firefox doing the same thing or not would not validate or invalidate the situation.

I am pointing out why Opera Lite would be a waste of time/resources.

what’s useless in your opinion doesn’t really help a whole lot since there are more people out there than you.

I’ll let you correct your ownself

the Opera Lite crowd often thinks that Opera Lite would magically make Opera render webpages faster.

Of the minority of users who want Opera Lite, I think the ignorant users who think such things are very low in numbers. However, keep in mind that extraneous clients do have the ability to affect browser functionality. There was a bug (in the last 2-4 months) where disabling the mail client would cause the info panel to crash Opera. Also, disabling/enabling the torrent client was affecting the downloading of some mimetypes. Those are two simple benefits from having a browser-only setup. I can’t be held responsible for ignorant people. I know it won’t render pages faster. That’s not the basis of the request.

What benefit do you receive by downloading the bookmarks feature, extensions framework (XUL is extremely bloated), Places feature, live bookmarks feature, etc. in Firefox?

ummm… EXTENSIONS. Extensions are what firefox has to me. Thats its main selling point. If it didn’t support extensions, I don’t think firefox would be leading so strongly behind IE in market share. This is sort of not fair to firefox because I don’t use firefox. Its merely a tool where firebug lives so I don’t have experience with a lot of the things you are talking about or bringing up from the ff side of things. What non-browser related stuff does firefox force on you? (serious question here)

Any other points you think I ignored? Its interesting how I’m answering your questions but you aren’t answering mine.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS: Do you think a torrent client aids you in browsing the web, etc? Ditto for IRC.
…
From my earlier explanation, did you realize how you were/are showing hostility?
…
The people want something so it would benefit those people to receive it. Do you understand?

This is fun…

But you aren’t forced to download chatzilla, fireftp, and a plethera of other extensions.

You are “forced” to download the bookmarks feature, extensions framework (XUL is extremely bloated), Places feature, live bookmarks feature, etc.

You are approaching the situation from the wrong direction.

No, I am pointing out why Opera Lite would be a waste of time/resources.

There’s nothing to educate.

There is. As I pointed out, the Opera Lite crowd often thinks that Opera Lite would magically make Opera render webpages faster.

What benefit do I receive by downloading that unused code every friday?

What benefit do you receive by downloading the bookmarks feature, extensions framework (XUL is extremely bloated), Places feature, live bookmarks feature, etc. in Firefox?

Keep ignoring these points that show your double standards, won’t you

Yeah, like Firefox’s bookmarks, extensions, Places, live bookmarks, etc. are forced upon everyone. I get it.

But you aren’t forced to download chatzilla, fireftp, and a plethera of other extensions. Firefox is a platform on which to build. Opera is the finished product for the most part.

People who want Opera Lite mistakenly believe that it would make a real difference.

You are approaching the situation from the wrong direction. The difference it will make is that its something that we are requesting so it will be pleasing to us for them to deliver it. You see. The people want something so it would benefit those people to receive it. Do you understand?

The best thing to do is to educate the mistaken Opera Lite crowd.

There’s nothing to educate. You have a misconception of why I want Opera Lite. It’s mostly based on principality. I know for a fact that I will not be using the mail, rss, irc, etc clients. What benefit do I receive by downloading that unused code every friday?

In opera, all functionality/features are forced upon everyone

Yeah, like Firefox’s bookmarks, extensions, Places, live bookmarks, etc. are forced upon everyone. I get it.

If I was the only one in the community that wanted Opera Lite

People who want Opera Lite mistakenly believe that it would make a real difference. Reality is that Opera Lite is not needed to use external e-mail clients and such. The best thing to do is to educate the mistaken Opera Lite crowd.

what’s useless in your opinion doesn’t really help a whole lot since there are more people out there than you.

Strangely you seem to think Opera Lite is not warranted and you felt the need to express that opinion but my opinions are useless. That sounds objective.

And it’s interesting that you get to decide when a feature is “forced” or not.

In opera, all functionality/features are forced upon everyone because there are no alternate builds. A feature (good or bad) is forced upon everyone all the time. Alternatively in safari, ie, and ff, the dev tools (for instance) are external tools. The vindictive side of me hopes that is not the case in Opera.

You are apparently the god who decides what a “fundamental aspect of web browsers” is

PLEASE ANSWER THIS: Do you think a torrent client aids you in browsing the web, etc? Ditto for IRC. Things that directly affect or improve the act of browsing the web (you know its called a web browser) are things I categorize as fundamental or at least things that improve that experience. I don’t use Speed Dial but it offers a benefit from a web browser standpoint so if Opera made an Opera Lite, it would be logical for it to be included. Same with userjs, bookmarks, back and forward navigation, mouse gestures, wand (don’t use it), etc. These are things that directly affect and/or impact the act of browsing the web. I was not attempting to be God but merely a logical person. For the same reasons, my text editor doesn’t and shouldn’t play dvds. I acquired it to manipulate text. Anything beyond that, is beyond the scope of its name. This is what wikipedia thinks a web browser is:

A web browser is a software application that enables a user to display and interact with text, images, videos, music and other information typically located on a Web page at a website on the World Wide Web or a local area network. Text and images on a Web page can contain hyperlinks to other Web pages at the same or different website. Web browsers allow a user to quickly and easily access information provided on many Web pages at many websites by traversing these links. Web browsers format HTML information for display, so the appearance of a Web page may differ between browsers.
…
Some of the more popular browsers include additional components to support Usenet news, IRC (Internet relay chat), and e-mail. Protocols supported may include NNTP (network news transfer protocol), SMTP (simple mail transfer protocol), IMAP (Internet message access protocol), and POP (post office protocol). These browsers are often referred to as Internet suites or application suites rather than merely Web browsers.

They also classify it as additional functionality. The first paragraph sounds sort of like fundamental things to me while later they talk about additional/extraneous/superfluous functionality. It’s this additional functionality that pulls applications from the browser realm and into the internet suite realm. Its like I or some other logical person wrote/edited Wikipedia. Crazy. If you can not distinguish between things that are directly related to a web browser and those that are not, then perhaps you have much larger problems.

Your argument in a nutshell is that if you don’t want or need it, it shouldn’t be in a browser or a suite.

This is a false statement. There are multiple things that I have no use for that logically belong in a web browser. All of the excess clients makes sense in a suite. I’m not sure a suite really has strict limits of what to include. However, Opera ASA consistently and purposefully advertises Opera as a web browser or browser. I have yet to see one opera endorsed page with the phrase “Opera Suite” or “Opera Web Suite”. Feel free to correct me here. When I originally downloaded Opera, I was under the influence that I was downloading the Opera web browser. I was not aware of the swiss army knife hiding inside. Over time more and more things are added and some don’t even have off switches (widgets for example). Some have off switches that don’t thoroughly do their job. They bundle it up and you have no choice but to consume it or switch browsers.

Which shows the folly of even trying to reason with you because you are not interested in looking objectively at this.

If I was the only one in the community that wanted Opera Lite, then I would say you maybe have a point. Opera lite (like a UserJS manager and inline-spellchecking) are consistently and repeatedly requested in the community. I’m not sure how popular things need to be before Opera acts on them. For the most part, Opera’s shroud of secrecy prevents them from discussing what they will add and won’t add. Perhaps you don’t understand. No one (that I know of) wants Opera Lite to replace the current Opera edition. I (we) would just like a separate build that has Opera-with-browser-functionality-only. That’s all. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for some and while it enrages others. This is something I’ve been wanting and requesting and waiting for quite a while and I am passionate about it so yes it is difficult for me to remove my feelings from the discussion. I apologize for being human.

You don’t need Opera Lite to use something else. Whether Opera adds features out of necessity or not is not relevant to whether you can choose something else if you want to or not.

I’m not sure I fully understand this. You don’t need mail to use Opera. You don’t need IRC to use Opera. There are lots of things Opera has that no one needs. I don’t exactly understand the point here. “We all have the option to use something else” does that mean another browser? I could switch browsers as could anyone else, but I would prefer that Opera improve and take my wants and desires into consideration instead of me using another browser.

@heh: From my earlier explanation, did you realize how you were/are showing hostility? I realize that I am and its not accidental. When people are attacked, it is natural to defend one’s self. Sometimes this defense comes in just as harsh or a worse manner.