Well, the fix is to have a simpler API that allows less rope for developers to hang themselves. This is how Chrome manages it. Firefox was built with this vision of XUL-based apps, big modifications, etc which never panned out. A lot of what needs to get done by extensions really can be done via simplified API like Chrome's.

A lot of the people still using Firefox instead of Chrome are sticking with FF exactly because they use extensions that can't be implemented on Chrome.

> A lot of what needs to get done by extensions really can be done via simplified API like Chrome's.

A lot of useless stuff yes, the useful stuff? Not really. Good luck building something as wide-ranging as Firebug through Chrome's API.

That's not a fix, it's a different tradeoff.

The important thing is you have choices and can pick the browser that makes the tradeoff you prefer.

Firefox has that simplified API in the Add-on SDK (aka Jetpack). However, they're stuck supporting all the traditiional XUL and XPCOM based extensions as well.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/tools/builder

Please demonstrate your credentials to back your claim that "done via simplified API like Chrome's". I ask because this is certainly a false statement.

Are you an extension developer? Have you ported an extension from Firefox to Chrome? Opinion is one thing; please don't misrepresent facts.

A lot, but not enough, like:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...