So, who uses dreamweaver or a similar full-scale editor (like ehmm FrontPage!)? I have been told DreamWeaver is pretty developer friendly, but still, I can't bring myself to spend days to just learn the program. I've used it a couple of times, and it only slowed things down.
Frontpage, which I've had the misfortune of using for years, is down right terrible. I'm sure I don't have to repeat that one.
Originally posted by vb.net
So, who uses dreamweaver or a similar full-scale editor (like ehmm FrontPage!)? I have been told DreamWeaver is pretty developer friendly, but still, I can't bring myself to spend days to just learn the program. I've used it a couple of times, and it only slowed things down.
Frontpage, which I've had the misfortune of using for years, is down right terrible. I'm sure I don't have to repeat that one.
Why use either? Namo WebEditor is better than both and cheaper, not to mention very easy to learn.
http://www.namo.com
I use DW. Sometimes it's worth putting in the days to learn a new software as in the long run it may save you days in time. Though you may find that you will never use many of it's advanced features. I've never heard of Namo but I would think it's worth a try considering the price.
Dreamweaver has to be one of the easiest programs to learn that I've come across. I had version 4 at work for a while, then upped to MX, which works very well with the Macromedia Studio suite. It can generate vast quantities of JavaScript though, so you'd be better writing your own.
But the best part is the colour coding on tags and scripts.
But as already pointed out, it's not cheap, and you do have to experiment with some of the advanced features.
It's not a bad idea to live by the rule: don't use a dedicated editor unless you can go in and hand-code or debug what the program has generated.
dreamweaver is ok for doing html, but it just plain sucks for doing any script editing.
Their motto seems to be why use 1 line of code when you can use 20.
I agree, but give it a bit of credit - Adobe generates more.
I think I probably use it as a colour-coded version of Notepad, the greatest text editor ever created.
notepad sux.
Try TextPad (http://www.textpad.com/) or UltraEdit (http://www.ultraedit.com/)
It's still one of the most accessible and convenient programs around, at least for Windows users, especially when you've loads of text or code to copy and paste all over the place.
Just tried them out - TextPad looks good but takes an age to load in comparison to Notepad/Wordpad and has a nasty "how to register" bit every time. And UltraEdit doesn't work for me at all. Same thing when you open it -"Authorize! Go on, you know you want to!!!"
Nice ability to change colouring on TextPad, though.
Frontpage Yes is Microsoft and blah blah. Is still not a bad tool if you are in a MS Shop and have the extensions installed. Plus in my experience the uptake for the average joe is a lot quicker then for them to learn DW.
My first job was in the central web team for a Gov department and I had to support, people with little or no interest in web authoring but were placed in a role to do basic Intranet updates on the side of there other duties. FP being like word was easier for them to pick up. We had strond standards in place to ensure that they did not use any of the MS features and all was fine.
We found we had problems when a Web Designer came to the team and thought he was the **** cause he used his own copy of DW and decided to use DW Library Items and Templates and sites that he built. Author acceptance was low on those sites cause you couldn't edit them properly in FP and alot of the features didn't work.
Moral to the story - dont rely on a program to write your code and you will be able to take your code into any editor for edits.
I do use DW at home, cause I prefer its local site management, over the FP interpretation. But find myself in Design/Code view. Design for quick and easy stuff, Code to get in and make sure it works the way I want.
Use Macromedia's latest offering, Contribute, in connection with Dreamweaver and users can update content live on the web or intranet.
It take's very little figuring out as well.
I always work with Dreamweaver in code view, unless it's drawing tables which is quick and easy in Design view.
On a lot of web hosts, FrontPage Extensions conflict with .htaccess files and Apache, so I had to get my host to disable them. And as for FrontPage itself - why not use Publisher or Word to create HTML? They're all as bad as each other for content.
The #1 reason no programmer should ever use notepad:
no line numbers
Among the other features notepad lacks:
regular expression matching
search and replace across multiple files
color (be it simple background color or advanced syntax coloring)
integrated development environment (in textpad and many other programs you can associate a compiler / interpreter with the program and execute your code with 1 keystroke)
macros
code snippets library
viewable whitespace
spell checker
Also, did I mention notepad is MS? Do I really need to give more reasons to stop using it?
:p
The reason I use it is its downright simplicity, not because it performs all the functions a dedicated editor does.
If you use templating in DW, then it locks it in the Code view. Notepad negotiates the problem of editing the locked portions without having to manipulate the DW code further.
If I want the functionality draelon quite rightly identifies, I'll use something designed for the job.
Plus all our systems at work are running Windows, seeing as Linux is NOT an alternative for us. We scrapped Unix as quickly as was possible because we have no expertise. Notepad, in this case, is far more suitable for the job I do.
FYI, I (who started this topic) use Textpad for everything except .NET, which I use Visual Studio.NET. But by gollee, Textpad doesn't support Perl syntaxes!
Althought dreamweaver is nice, i prefer the coding power of homesite. Perhaps hard coding something is the long and hard way, but i like it. I really made the site, not some program.
Vim (http://www.vim.org)!!! :D
I used DW in a web design class and at first i didn't like it at all cause it was basically doing stuff straight out of a text, no coding at all. but once we got into complex tables i was glad i didn't have to hardcode. overall DW is a good program to have around for when it's easier to do things by visual site like tables and places and aligning graphics, but i still like to hardcode most of my sites.
Originally posted by Xpander
I used DW in a web design class and at first i didn't like it at all cause it was basically doing stuff straight out of a text, no coding at all. but once we got into complex tables i was glad i didn't have to hardcode. overall DW is a good program to have around for when it's easier to do things by visual site like tables and places and aligning graphics, but i still like to hardcode most of my sites.
But tables are structural elements, not visual elements. ;)