I quit.
jerryeveretts
bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
been a complete disaster. I hate to give it to Muah and Tommy and the
likes, but good grief, I am tired of banging my head against the wall
here.
I sold my Macbook Pro on ebay this evening for about $1000.00. I
bought a brand new HP laptop with Windows 7 for $700.00. It only has a
2.2Ghz Core 2 vs. the Macbooks 2.4. But it comes with 4GB DDR3 (Max
8), and it has a 500GB 7200RPM drive, and a Radeon HD4650 with 1GB of
GDDR3! It still has a LED screen, but also has esata port. Both have
wireless N and both spec out very close. I do like the numeric keypad
on the HP though.
I am going to say goodbye to Apple for good this time. I sold my
iPhone on ebay when the Droid came out and haven't looked back since.
In my completely honest opinion, almost everything I had to do was
more difficult and took more steps on OSX than on Windows. I was
cursing this laptop more often than I would like to admit.
Snit
38073b2b-062a-4eb8...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 2/15/10
7:13 PM:
Do you have any specific examples?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
<38073b2b-062a-4eb8...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
I find this post extremely baffling. As a general rule OS X nicely
trumps Windows for web development because (unless you're using
Microsoft technologies), most web frameworks these days are implemented
first for *nix with modifications necessary for Windows. OS X also ships
with Apache, Rails, PHP, etc. pre-installed.
Practically every time you see photos on company blogs, at web tech
conferences, etc. you'll see that Mac laptops appear to be standard
equipment for web startups these days, so I don't think I'm alone in the
opinion that OS X is pretty solid for web development.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Sandman
<38073b2b-062a-4eb8...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
> bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
> working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
> been a complete disaster.
A little more details, please. I do 95% web development in my business
and I use 100% Macs for that. What about the Mac made this difficult?
I'm genuinely curious.
--
Sandman[.net]
jerryeveretts
> In article
> <38073b2b-062a-4eb8-8ff8-bfe5c13dc...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Â jerryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
> > bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
> > working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
> > been a complete disaster.
>
> A little more details, please. I do 95% web development in my business
> and I use 100% Macs for that. What about the Mac made this difficult?
> I'm genuinely curious.
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]
3 things were horrible to me.... first off, my developement team
uses .net and mssql. Now I don't specifically develop myself, but
frequently have to make a lot of html changes. I used to use
Frontpage, and with that set up for FTP, I could just open the website
with Windows Explorer, make a quick chane with Frontpage and save it.
I tried to use iWeb but holy crap, that is one big stinking pile of
crap, I never found anything as good as Frontpage, I ended up using
Sea Monkey, in conjuction with Filezilla, which got the job done, but
two programs, one to download a copy via FTP, one to make changes,
then back to Filezilla to upload changes....
Second problem is the way it handles my Camera and pictures. For
whatever reason, it will only open my camera (Nikon) with iPhoto, it
will not mount it as a volume in Finder. So in Windows when posting
ebay auctions. I could take a bunch of pictures, then just plug the
camera in and it would show up in explorer, and from the ebay screen
upload directly from the camera. Now on the Mac I have to plug the
camera in, then iphoto opens, import the pictures, then drag the
pictures from iphoto to a folder on my desktop then upload them to
ebay.
Third is the lack of a quick and easy way to play music. I have about
100,000 songs in my library, and it takes iTunes a fair amount of time
to load up. If I just want to play a sound clip, I wish there was a
way to do that natively without loading the whole itunes library.
Another problem is with video playback... can't play back many types
including a lot of .avi files, finally downloaded VLC or something
like that, it had a traffic cone for the icon. It worked, but there we
go, another program needed to do something simple. When I tried to
take that .avi that wouldn't play, Which was my nieces birthday BTW,
and burn it to a DVD, I used iDVD, but it had no idea what to do with
the file, so I bought Roxio Toast, and that said I was missing a
Codec, so I just ended up doing it over in Windows 7.
I know a lot of this is because I am not used to the Mac, but still..
isn't this supposed to be an easy and wonderful experience? I would
like my computer to not make me have to solve puzzles to get my work
done.
Couple all that with the fact that I found a more powerful computer
from HP that cost significantly less brand new, than my Apple is worth
used. and I am going with the HP, and putting thre rest of the money
into things I like to do.
Tommy the Troll
That sure matches my experience with Mac OS. Things that are so easy
and intuitive in Windows take so long to figure out.
Alan Baker
<faeb36f3-38b8-4ea1...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:02�am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <38073b2b-062a-4eb8-8ff8-bfe5c13dc...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �jerryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
> > > bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
> > > working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
> > > been a complete disaster.
> >
> > A little more details, please. I do 95% web development in my business
> > and I use 100% Macs for that. What about the Mac made this difficult?
> > I'm genuinely curious.
> >
> > --
> > Sandman[.net]
>
> 3 things were horrible to me.... first off, my developement team
> uses .net and mssql. Now I don't specifically develop myself, but
So why mention it?
> frequently have to make a lot of html changes. I used to use
> Frontpage, and with that set up for FTP, I could just open the website
> with Windows Explorer, make a quick chane with Frontpage and save it.
> I tried to use iWeb but holy crap, that is one big stinking pile of
> crap, I never found anything as good as Frontpage, I ended up using
> Sea Monkey, in conjuction with Filezilla, which got the job done, but
> two programs, one to download a copy via FTP, one to make changes,
> then back to Filezilla to upload changes....
>
> Second problem is the way it handles my Camera and pictures. For
> whatever reason, it will only open my camera (Nikon) with iPhoto, it
> will not mount it as a volume in Finder. So in Windows when posting
> ebay auctions. I could take a bunch of pictures, then just plug the
> camera in and it would show up in explorer, and from the ebay screen
> upload directly from the camera. Now on the Mac I have to plug the
> camera in, then iphoto opens, import the pictures, then drag the
> pictures from iphoto to a folder on my desktop then upload them to
> ebay.
>
> Third is the lack of a quick and easy way to play music. I have about
> 100,000 songs in my library, and it takes iTunes a fair amount of time
> to load up. If I just want to play a sound clip, I wish there was a
> way to do that natively without loading the whole itunes library.
You mean like how Quicktime Player plays MP3s?
>
> Another problem is with video playback... can't play back many types
> including a lot of .avi files, finally downloaded VLC or something
> like that, it had a traffic cone for the icon. It worked, but there we
> go, another program needed to do something simple. When I tried to
> take that .avi that wouldn't play, Which was my nieces birthday BTW,
> and burn it to a DVD, I used iDVD, but it had no idea what to do with
> the file, so I bought Roxio Toast, and that said I was missing a
> Codec, so I just ended up doing it over in Windows 7.
Wow. You had to download a program. How could you stand the strain...
>
> I know a lot of this is because I am not used to the Mac, but still..
> isn't this supposed to be an easy and wonderful experience? I would
> like my computer to not make me have to solve puzzles to get my work
> done.
LOL
>
> Couple all that with the fact that I found a more powerful computer
> from HP that cost significantly less brand new, than my Apple is worth
> used. and I am going with the HP, and putting thre rest of the money
> into things I like to do.
What do you suppose your HP will be worth when you sell it?
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Alan Baker
Steve Mackay
Do you purchase a computer based entirely on it's resale value?
-hh
> > A little more details, please. I do 95% web development in my business
> > and I use 100% Macs for that. What about the Mac made this difficult?
> > I'm genuinely curious.
>
> uses .net and mssql. Now I don't specifically develop myself, but
> frequently have to make a lot of html changes. I used to use
> Frontpage, and with that set up for FTP, I could just open the website
> with Windows Explorer, make a quick chane with Frontpage and save it.
> I tried to use iWeb but holy crap, that is one big stinking pile of
> crap, I never found anything as good as Frontpage, I ended up using
> Sea Monkey, in conjuction with Filezilla, which got the job done, but
> two programs, one to download a copy via FTP, one to make changes,
> then back to Filezilla to upload changes....
Just because iWeb comes included for free on new Macs doesn't
automatically mean that its an HTML-based editing tool for coding - -
it doesn't take long at all to realize that its merely intended to be
a way to get iPhoto "Event" image collections onto a website fairly
painlessly, without ever having to see source code.
FWIW, I'm not familar with Sea Monkey; I'm not sure if BBedit might
have been what you were looking for. In any event, some of the issue
here is obviously using a tool (Frontpage) which is known to not be
cross-platform. Granted, I know that this wasn't a choice upfront,
as you were apparently already standardized on it ... but from a
management of expectations perspective, it isn't as if there haven't
been any clues over the past 30 years about Microsoft not being
particularly cross-platform friendly.
> Second problem is the way it handles my Camera and pictures. For
> whatever reason, it will only open my camera (Nikon) with iPhoto, it
> will not mount it as a volume in Finder.
Is there any reason why you didn't look in the iPhoto Preferences
pane?
The default opens to the (General) tab, the last item listed is:
"Connecting Camera Opens" (menu)
This menu is by default set to 'iPhoto'; options are 'Image Capture',
or 'No Application'.
> Third is the lack of a quick and easy way to play music. I have about
> 100,000 songs in my library, and it takes iTunes a fair amount of time
> to load up. If I just want to play a sound clip, I wish there was a
> way to do that natively without loading the whole itunes library.
Right click on the file, select "open with" option.
> Another problem is with video playback... can't play back many types
> including a lot of .avi files, finally downloaded VLC or something
> like that, it had a traffic cone for the icon. It worked, but there we
> go, another program needed to do something simple.
IMO, this is a symptom of a larger general problem, which is that
there's a gazillion different video codecs out there. However, thus
said, I've not personally encountered any particular compactibility
problems with .AVI files that were created by conventional consumer
grade digital cameras. However, this could be because I was using a
different workflow, namely Apple's default one.
What created this .AVI? Was it straight from the creating source, or
did it get "massaged" through someone's PC that may have re-saved it
with some oddball codec? What specific codec & format combination
did the file ultimately have?
> When I tried to
> take that .avi that wouldn't play, Which was my nieces birthday BTW,
> and burn it to a DVD, I used iDVD, but it had no idea what to do with
> the file, so I bought Roxio Toast, and that said I was missing a
> Codec, so I just ended up doing it over in Windows 7.
You didn't first import the .AVI file(s) into iMovie?
IMO, this is generally where the digital workflow intended by Apple
through iLife would probably have been of assistance: even video
files can be imported & stored in iPhoto, which folds nicely into
iMovie, which then nicely folds into iDVD for the burning of a disk as
the final product.
> I know a lot of this is because I am not used to the Mac, but still..
> isn't this supposed to be an easy and wonderful experience? I would
> like my computer to not make me have to solve puzzles to get my work
> done.
Yes, although the correlary question might be at what points did you
reach out for help, by asking questions on solving various problems.
Granted, CSMA isn't the best place to do this, but it might have been
useful to have at least mentioned your specific frustrations here (my
apologies if I missed them) so that they could have been addressed
prior to giving up. Good luck with your HP, whichever model it might
be. And since no system is completely foolproof, please let us know
what "gotchas" you discover en route.
-hh
Alan Baker
Steve Mackay <mackay...@att.net> wrote:
No. But then I'm not whining about how much my computer is worth a
resale, either....
Tommy the Troll
wrote:
ROTFLMAO
Take the simple act of moving or re-sizing a window.
The OS X way:
There are three main types of windows in OS X, each of which has its
own rules for moving:
1. Standard windows, with a clearly separated title bar and toolbar
(i.e., Preview or Sherlock)
2. Unified windows, with a title bar and toolbar that appear as one
piece (i.e., Mail or System Preferences)
3. Metal windows, which have the appearance of brushed metal (i.e.,
Calculator or Address Book)
Standard windows can only be moved by dragging their title bar.
Unified windows can be moved by dragging anywhere within the title
bar/toolbar area. Brushed metal windows can be moved from any brushed
metal portion of the window.
All three types of windows can only be resized with the resize handle
at their lower-right corner, which has one large usability issue - if
a window is located at the right and/or bottom of the screen, you will
need to move it in order to make room in which to drag the resize
handle. If the window's lower-right corner is off-screen, you will
have to move the window before you will be able to resize it! Also,
because the resize handle is located in the corner, you cannot
specifically resize the window only in one direction (to adjust just
its width, for example) unless your mouse movements are precise.
The Windows way:
All windows are moved by dragging their title bar.
In Windows you can grab any edge or corner and resize (assuming the
window is not a fixed size).
And that's just the start...here is one more just for fun
Windows controls, the OS X way:
The top left corner of every Mac OS X window contains close, minimize,
and zoom controls. The red close button will close the window
(obviously), while the yellow minimize button will scale the window
down into a small dock icon (complete with a gratuitous "genie"
animation), overlaid with the icon of the parent application. The zoom
button will generally resize the window so as to best display its
contents, and, less often, to switch the window into an alternate
mode:
In Mail, the zoom button resizes the window to fill the entire screen
(minus the space being taken up by the dock)
In Safari, the zoom button will resize the window to fit the content
on a web page to eliminate scrolling (or reduce it as little as
possible)
In iTunes, the zoom button compacts the entire application's window
into a mini-player mode that displays only simple playback controls
When clicked a second time, the zoom button will restore the window to
its previous size.
While useful in some situations, the zoom button can also cause
confusion. Unlike the close and minimize buttons, which always behave
the same way across the whole system, the zoom button's behavior
varies from application to application. Good UI design dictates that
if a control looks the same across applications, it should also act
the same, but the zoom button violates this assumption by not making
it clear to the user what will happen when they click on it.
The Windows way:
Window Controls are found in the top-right corner of each window, and
are, from left to right, minimize, maximize, and close. The commands
are consistent.
Like I said, OS X is a usability nightmare.
Fa-groon
(in article
<faeb36f3-38b8-4ea1...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
> On Feb 16, 1:02ï¿œam, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <38073b2b-062a-4eb8-8ff8-bfe5c13dc...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
This IS strange. I have both a Nikon D90 and a Nikon D3 (full 35mm frame).
Both show up on my Mac desktop. If I don't want the camera to open iPhoto, I
simply open iPhoto prefs and set it to "open no application" when a camera is
connected.
>
> Third is the lack of a quick and easy way to play music. I have about
> 100,000 songs in my library, and it takes iTunes a fair amount of time
> to load up. If I just want to play a sound clip, I wish there was a
> way to do that natively without loading the whole itunes library.
Have you tried Vox? It's free. it takes up little room on the HDD and will
play most anything
> Another problem is with video playback... can't play back many types
> including a lot of .avi files, finally downloaded VLC or something
> like that, it had a traffic cone for the icon. It worked, but there we
> go, another program needed to do something simple. When I tried to
> take that .avi that wouldn't play, Which was my nieces birthday BTW,
> and burn it to a DVD, I used iDVD, but it had no idea what to do with
> the file, so I bought Roxio Toast, and that said I was missing a
> Codec, so I just ended up doing it over in Windows 7.
>
> I know a lot of this is because I am not used to the Mac, but still..
> isn't this supposed to be an easy and wonderful experience? I would
> like my computer to not make me have to solve puzzles to get my work
> done.
It is a wonderful and easy experience unless you expect and/or require it to
work like Windows. Then, you won't like it. I suspect that a lot of my
dislike for Windows is based on the fact that Windows doesn't work like a Mac
and I expect and want it to. When it doesn't I get frustrated and finally,
angry.
> Couple all that with the fact that I found a more powerful computer
> from HP that cost significantly less brand new, than my Apple is worth
> used. and I am going with the HP, and putting thre rest of the money
> into things I like to do.
That's your choice, and good luck with it. Oh, and you won't forget to close
the CSMA door behind you when you leave, will you? Thanks.
Fa-groon
(in article <75bln5t93qi4l6r29...@4ax.com>):
Ever stop to think that this is because you expect and WANT Macs to work like
Windows and when they don't you have to stop and figure out how the Mac does
the task differently? This causes frustration and anger. Believe me, I
recognize it as one of the reasons I dislike Windows so much. I want Windows
to work like the Mac. When it doesn't, I get frustrated and it's not fun.
There are other reasons I dislike Windows, of course: It's ugly and primitive
looking. It still has a lot of DOS bits sticking out of it (like C Drives)
and it gives too many annoying pop-ups while one is trying to work. Things
like that. They're different. If I wasn't so used to the way that Macs works,
and didn't like that way so much, I'd probably be a lot more platform
agnostic too.
Fa-groon
(in article <nfhln515qro3rl8nh...@4ax.com>):
Like I said. You expect Macs to work like Windows. When they don't, you get
frustrated and angry. Do you believe for one moment that Mac users give the
two examples you just mentioned above any thought at all? No, we don't. We
know the differences and don't think about them. Doing it right for each
example is second nature. It's only a nightmare for you because you want it
to work like Windows and it doesn't .
Sandman
<faeb36f3-38b8-4ea1...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
> > > bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
> > > working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
> > > been a complete disaster.
> >
> > A little more details, please. I do 95% web development in my business
> > and I use 100% Macs for that. What about the Mac made this difficult?
> > I'm genuinely curious.
>
> 3 things were horrible to me.... first off, my developement team
> uses .net and mssql. Now I don't specifically develop myself, but
> frequently have to make a lot of html changes. I used to use
> Frontpage, and with that set up for FTP, I could just open the website
> with Windows Explorer, make a quick chane with Frontpage and save it.
> I tried to use iWeb but holy crap, that is one big stinking pile of
> crap, I never found anything as good as Frontpage, I ended up using
> Sea Monkey, in conjuction with Filezilla, which got the job done, but
> two programs, one to download a copy via FTP, one to make changes,
> then back to Filezilla to upload changes....
Really poor research you did there. I won't comment on the workflow
monstrosity of allowing people to make changes to an active web
deployment using something like *frontpage*.
A real up and coming all-in-one environment for the Mac is Coda that
has built in SFTP, text editor, preview and CSS editor. All it lacks
is a SQL browser.
The premier code development tool for the mac is still BBEDit, which
also comes with a SFTP browser.
> Second problem is the way it handles my Camera and pictures.
... I fail to see what this has to do with web development.
> Third is the lack of a quick and easy way to play music.
... Eh? This has nothing to do with web development. This is what you
said:
"Anything I have to do related to web development has
been a complete disaster"
Now, see - I *am* a web developer using the Mac, and I've completely
missed this "disaster" so I wanted you to elaborate on that. All you
brought me was a non-scenario based on poor research from you.
I'm sure you'll remedy this with your followup where you'll talk about
the disaster with regards to web development that using a Mac led to.
Thank you in advance.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet> wrote:
> There are three main types of windows in OS X, each of which has its
> own rules for moving:
>
> 1. Standard windows, with a clearly separated title bar and toolbar
> (i.e., Preview or Sherlock)
>
> 2. Unified windows, with a title bar and toolbar that appear as one
> piece (i.e., Mail or System Preferences)
>
> 3. Metal windows, which have the appearance of brushed metal (i.e.,
> Calculator or Address Book)
There aren't three types of windows, Tom imposter.
Try again.
And.. *SHERLOCK*? COme on, that program was killed of some five-six
years ago.
--
Sandman[.net]
Andrew Templeman
I know it's too late.. you have sold your Mac.
> 3 things were horrible to me....
1. Okay you are used to making a quick change to an html file via a
visual web page editor (frontpage) and having an automatic process to
upload to the server. Surely real web dev is more than that with aspx or
php files now?
I know frontpage does the simple html, but does it produce valid w3c
html? (Is frontpage still going or has the MS world switched all to
sharepoint now?)
2. The default when you plug a camera in is to give you iPhoto. If you
have bought Aperture you can get that instead, or if your like me you
can load 'Image Capture' and use that "almost" like a finder window do
d/l a couple of pics to any folder on your system. (The prefs of this
app let you set this as the default to open when you plug in a camera)
3. open a finder window of your MP3 or WAV files in column view (Cmd-3)
and when you click on a file the preview pane has a 'Play' button
--
Andy Templeman
jerryeveretts
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:34:16 -0800, Tommy the Troll wrote
This is my third time giving Apple a try. And I didn't buy the HP I
was going to buy. I bought an ASUS G71. It has a 2.53Ghz C2D, 6GB Ram,
500Gb Hdd, 17"LED, Geforce GTX260 with 1G. It was $1000.00.
As far as resale value, I could care less. However, I am glad the Mac
had good resale value since I had to dump it. And yes I am quite sure
my frustrations are a result of my being so comfortable on the Windows
platform. That being said, I really don't have time to learn a new way
of doing things, if Apple ever gets a large percentage of the user
base, I would say that I don't have time to NOT learn how to use it,
but in the meantime....
There were a multitude of 'little' things,some of which I already
mentioned. Another example, I support about a dozen Windows based
servers running on virtual machines under VMware. I use Microsoft VPN
for connectivity, I then have a folder full of RDP saved profiles to
access whatever server I need... on the Apple, none would resolve by
name, I had to RDP to the IP address.
As for the camera thing, I have a Nikon Coolpix S230, I did turn the
iphoto opening automatically option off, but it still didn't mount on
the desktop.
And to explain the disaster, I didn't realize until it was too late,
but I created a web framework in iWeb, which did seem quite primitive,
but published to a folder, then FTP'ed the content to the server, my
programmer then went to the server and installed the .net application
portions and database, and everything was good, then I was asked by
the customer if I could make a small change by moving an image. That
is when I realized I couldn't open an existing html file to make the
change, if I made the change on my copy and put it back on the server,
I would lose all the work my programmer had done. I did get it done,
but it took a lot longer than the 2 minutes it would have taken with
tools I am used to.
Also, I am not trying to slam you Mac guys, never have, never will. I
have been around here a long time, and I always tell it like it is. I
bought the Mac because it was "Oh so Sexy", but man... I have been in
IT since before Windows, I used to work as a Midrange Systems Engineer
for IBM. At this point in my life, I need to stick with what I am
comfortable with. Getting help? The only power user for Mac I know is
Oxford, I talked with him about a couple issues.
Oh, and not Apples fault at all.. but holy cow is Entourage a big
steaming pile of dung.
Alan Baker
<746d4b6f-3def-4c92...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
And not Apple's fault at all that you chose the wrong tools for your
work. iWeb for serious web development? Come on...
jerryeveretts
> In article
> <746d4b6f-3def-4c92-ad79-24dc0ce9b...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
You're absolutely right. I just don't know what I am supposed to use,
and even if I did happen across the right thing, I would then have to
learn how to use it. That's why I gave up.
ZnU
You know, if you're going to steal unattributed material off of web
sites (http://www.xvsxp.com/interface/moveresize.php), you should try to
make sure it isn't several years old and completely outdated. OS X
ditched the three distinct window types with the introduction of Leopard
back in 2007.
It also helps if you occasionally demonstrate that you're capable of
writing a substantive post yourself, so it isn't immediately obvious
when you've lifted content.
[snip]
Alan Baker
<d0ad14d0-d110-4b39...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
So you're blaming Apple because you were too lazy to do even basic
research of the appropriate tools?
Good job!
Sandman
<d0ad14d0-d110-4b39...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And not Apple's fault at all that you chose the wrong tools for your
> > work. iWeb for serious web development? Come on...
>
> You're absolutely right. I just don't know what I am supposed to use,
> and even if I did happen across the right thing, I would then have to
> learn how to use it. That's why I gave up.
This is the first hit when searching "mac web development" on google:
<http://webjackalope.com/web-development-tools-mac/>
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
d0ad14d0-d110-4b39...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 5:47锟絧m, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <746d4b6f-3def-4c92-ad79-24dc0ce9b...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> 锟絡erryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 1:25锟絧m, Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:34:16 -0800, Tommy the Troll wrote
>>>> (in article <75bln5t93qi4l6r29rskkepred5pe7o...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:13:07 -0800 (PST), jerryeveretts
>>>>> <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
>>>>>> bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
>>>>>> working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
>>>>>> been a complete disaster. I hate to give it to Muah and Tommy and the
>>>>>> likes, but good grief, I am tired of banging my head against the wall
>>>>>> here.
>>
>>>>>> I sold my Macbook Pro on ebay this evening for about $1000.00. I
>>>>>> bought a brand new HP laptop with Windows 7 for $700.00. It only has a
>>>>>> 2.2Ghz Core 2 vs. the Macbooks 2.4. But it comes with 4GB DDR3 (Max
>>>>>> 8), and it has a 500GB 7200RPM drive, and a Radeon HD4650 with 1GB of
>>>>>> GDDR3! It still has a LED screen, but also has esata port. Both have
>>>>>> wireless N and both spec out very close. I do like the numeric keypad
>>>>>> on the HP though.
>>
>>>>>> I am going to say goodbye to Apple for good this time. I sold my
>>>>>> iPhone on ebay when the Droid came out and haven't looked back since.
>>
>>>>>> In my completely honest opinion, almost everything I had to do was
>>>>>> more difficult and took more steps on OSX than on Windows. I was
>>>>>> cursing this laptop more often than I would like to admit.
>>
>>>>> That sure matches my experience with Mac OS. 锟絋hings that are so easy
>>>>> and intuitive in Windows take so long to figure out.
>>
>>>> Ever stop to think that this is because you expect and WANT Macs to work
>>>> like
>>>> Windows and when they don't you have to stop and figure out 锟絟ow the Mac
What?
Surely you cannot really mean what you have stated here..... You gave up
because you could not find the "right thing" in terms of what you wanted to
achieve and even if you had found the "right thing" an apparent learning
curve would be all that was needed to make you give up anyway?
I sincerely cannot fathom how an apparent reluctance to learn something new
results in the action that you have taken especially considering that you
said...
"That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
working well."
How can a "good try" not include the willingness to learn something new?
"For the most part it is working well"?
So the part that isn't doing so well is basically as a result of your
admission that you don't know what tools to use and even if you did stumble
upon them you wouldn't be bothered to learn how to use them?
If you were made aware of a new app that had the potential to make life
easier for you on your PC would you likewise give it a wide berth because it
would include a learning curve?
Nashton
All I can say is do what you believe is the right thing for you.
But it's important to note that some rudimentary research and perhaps
some discussion with a Mac web developer would have been of tremendous
value for you as far as achieving your goals as a web developer.
Also, I don't understand why you sold your iphone based on your mediocre
experience with the Mac. It's completely unrelated and baseless. The
whole affair is indicative of an individual who makes rash decisions
based on some bad experiences that would have required minimal effort.
Example, you need to use image capture to set which application (or not)
opens your photos.
I have had many difficulties with macs and am experiencing some now on
the hardware side. OTOH, and this unequivocally, you couldn't pay me
enough to go back to the Windows side, even though I have expressed this
desire a few times in the recent past, given my experience with faulty
Apple hardware.
I must admit though that as far as viewing movie clips downloaded from
the Internet is concerned, ever since VirtualHub has been discontinued,
I find it hard on many occasion (very seldom though) to open .avi files,
for example.
I applaud and encourage people to use what suits them and the hell with
loyalties to multibillion-dollar companies, but since you elaborated on
the reasons why you were switching back to Winders, don't be surprised
if people take you to task for the effort you put into learning how to
accomplish things on the Mac side.
Good luck.
PS. I have had many hardware related problems as of late and will buy a
Windows tower in lieu of a mac pro just to test the waters given that
many people I have talked to think Windows 7 is a vast improvement over
XP. But I will not sell my MBP, my iMacs and my G5 server in a whim. If
the experience with Windows turns out to be favorable and is worth it
for me as a user, I will have no qualms with switching. If it's anything
like XP and the OSs that preceded it, forget it.
And I'll be keeping my iPhone. :)
jerryeveretts
>
>
>
> "jerryeveretts" <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 5:47Â pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <746d4b6f-3def-4c92-ad79-24dc0ce9b...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>> On Feb 16, 1:25Â pm, Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:34:16 -0800, Tommy the Troll wrote
> >>>> (in article <75bln5t93qi4l6r29rskkepred5pe7o...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:13:07 -0800 (PST), jerryeveretts
> >>>>> <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
> >>>>>> bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
> >>>>>> working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
> >>>>>> been a complete disaster. I hate to give it to Muah and Tommy and the
> >>>>>> likes, but good grief, I am tired of banging my head against the wall
> >>>>>> here.
>
> >>>>>> I sold my Macbook Pro on ebay this evening for about $1000.00. I
> >>>>>> bought a brand new HP laptop with Windows 7 for $700.00. It only has a
> >>>>>> 2.2Ghz Core 2 vs. the Macbooks 2.4. But it comes with 4GB DDR3 (Max
> >>>>>> 8), and it has a 500GB 7200RPM drive, and a Radeon HD4650 with 1GB of
> >>>>>> GDDR3! It still has a LED screen, but also has esata port. Both have
> >>>>>> wireless N and both spec out very close. I do like the numeric keypad
> >>>>>> on the HP though.
>
> >>>>>> I am going to say goodbye to Apple for good this time. I sold my
> >>>>>> iPhone on ebay when the Droid came out and haven't looked back since.
>
> >>>>>> In my completely honest opinion, almost everything I had to do was
> >>>>>> more difficult and took more steps on OSX than on Windows. I was
> >>>>>> cursing this laptop more often than I would like to admit.
>
> >>>>> and intuitive in Windows take so long to figure out.
>
> >>>> Ever stop to think that this is because you expect and WANT Macs to work
> >>>> like
I don' think I blamed Apple at all. Also, why should I have learn
something new, when something that already works, and is faster and
cheaper is available. I tasted the Kool aid, and it isn't quite as
sweet as you guys claim.
jerryeveretts
>
> So you're blaming Apple because you were too lazy to do even basic
> research of the appropriate tools?
No blaming Apple.. also, I'm not too lazy... I'm too busy trying to
get my work done. Allow me to clarify. John the sales rep on the other
side of the state calls me an tells me that he is having trouble
getting an order in on his laptop system. With my Windows computer,
from home, I tell him to connect to VPN, I connect to VPN and remote
desktop to "Laptop-Johnp" and fix the problem. With the Mac, I would
have him connect to the VPN, I would connect to the VPN as well, but
since the Mac would not resolve Windows Hosts names when connected by
the Microsoft VPN, I would first have to remote to a server that I
remember the IP address of, then open a command prompt and ping
"Laptop-Johnp" to resolve his IP address. Disconnect, and then remote
to his laptop via IP address. Meanwhile, it has taken me twice as long
to fix a problem. This one happens several times a day.
Now, add to that the fact that on Windows, I can open a live html page
via FTP with Frontpage to make a quick change on the fly, and I can do
it in about 20 seconds. On the Apple, I have to launch an FTP client,
save a copy of the page local, make the changes, and then FTP it back
to the server. Regardless of the web etiquette of changing live pages,
this takes twice as long. Sure, I could do some research and learn to
do it the right way, but I am too busy looking up IP address' of the
70ish laptops I have to support across the state.
Back to the camera thing, I am sure I am missing something, I would
have like to have been able to manage my photo's without iPhoto. So
lets all presume that I am truly that stupid that I can't figure out
how to get my camera to mount on the desktop. I'll go with that. So if
Mac is so much easier than Windows, how come I have no problem with
WIndows? I plug the camera in, and there it is...no settings, no fuss,
no muss... "It just works".
So why on Gods green earth would I continue to use the Mac, Having to
learn a new way of doing things that is questionable better. When I
have something that I KNOW works, and is cheaper?
-hh
>
> [Windows-centric stuff]
>
> Now, add to that the fact that on Windows, I can open a live html page
> via FTP with Frontpage to make a quick change on the fly, and I can do
FWIW, I'm moderately surprised that you considered this approach at
all. The way that I would have personally done it would have been to
install Parallels and run Windows within a session, so as to move over
intact all of my existing Windows-specific tools. THEN I would have
looked to have seen what could be done the 'Apple' way. Afterall,
this is business and downtime isn't acceptable.
> Back to the camera thing, I am sure I am missing something, I would
> have like to have been able to manage my photo's without iPhoto.
Fair enough, but that approach is then bypassing the "it just works"
workflow that it came with.
> So if
> Mac is so much easier than Windows, how come I have no problem with
> WIndows? I plug the camera in, and there it is...no settings, no fuss,
> no muss... "It just works".
Because your scope is different?
It appears that your definition of "it just works" is merely that the
camera's storage is accessible to the OS, and that's the limit of your
scope: you don't care about how the data is managed from that point
forward, because you do it yourself.
The Apple scope is different: its not merely just hooking up the
camera's media, but to also copy it into a tool (iPhoto) that
facilitates management over a longer term and with broader end
application potential.
> So why on Gods green earth would I continue to use the Mac, Having to
> learn a new way of doing things that is questionable better. When I
> have something that I KNOW works, and is cheaper?
FWIW, what tool are you currently using in Windows for managing your
digital camera content?
I'm not going to claim that iPhoto is the greatest tool out there, but
at least it _is_ a management tool, and when you look at the rest of
what Apple has done, it has some pretty easy-to-use on-ramps and off-
ramps. For example, while Adobe Lightroom can create webpage photo
albums, I don't see where it can as easily also use the same original
image database repository to also create a hardcopy spiralbound
calendar, etc. Granted, these onoff-ramps aren't for everyone, but
that's true of any feature on any software package or OS.
-hh
Steve Hix
<45be19d7-3b90-4ab7...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> jerryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [Windows-centric stuff]
> >
> > Now, add to that the fact that on Windows, I can open a live html page
> > via FTP with Frontpage to make a quick change on the fly, and I can do
> > it in about 20 seconds. On the Apple, I have to...
>
> FWIW, I'm moderately surprised that you considered this approach at
> all. The way that I would have personally done it would have been to
> install Parallels and run Windows within a session,
Heck, download, install, and run it under VirtualBox, which works quite
well, and is free, to boot.
Alan Baker
<449e8c73-3663-4a62...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:04锟絘m, Wally <Wa...@wallyworld.net> wrote:
> > On 17/02/10 7:02 AM, in article
> > d0ad14d0-d110-4b39-b61e-ecb5da420...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,
> >
> >
> >
> > "jerryeveretts" <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 5:47锟絧m, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >> In article
> > >> <746d4b6f-3def-4c92-ad79-24dc0ce9b...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >> 锟絡erryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> That sure matches my experience with Mac OS. 锟絋hings that are so easy
> > >>>>> and intuitive in Windows take so long to figure out.
> >
> > >>>> Ever stop to think that this is because you expect and WANT Macs to
> > >>>> work
> > >>>> like
> > >>>> Windows and when they don't you have to stop and figure out 锟絟ow the
Your analogy falls apart because a sip is not enough to what Mac OS X is
all about.
Alan Baker
<e7751cd5-5677-4e07...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
As has been pointed out to you, that is all bullshit.
>
> Back to the camera thing, I am sure I am missing something, I would
> have like to have been able to manage my photo's without iPhoto. So
> lets all presume that I am truly that stupid that I can't figure out
> how to get my camera to mount on the desktop. I'll go with that. So if
> Mac is so much easier than Windows, how come I have no problem with
> WIndows? I plug the camera in, and there it is...no settings, no fuss,
> no muss... "It just works".
>
> So why on Gods green earth would I continue to use the Mac, Having to
> learn a new way of doing things that is questionable better. When I
> have something that I KNOW works, and is cheaper?
Sorry, Jerry, but you never really even gave the Mac a try. As Jonas has
already pointed out, you didn't even do the most obvious research into
what tools to use.
jerryeveretts
We are going to disagree on this one my friend. No hard feelings. But
it just wasn't for me.
I also mountain bike quite a bit, I have a friend who uses platform
pedals, even after trying clipless pedals, he doesn't like the feeling
of being locked to his pedals. No matter how much better we tell him
it is, he is more comfortable on platforms. I don't think he is an
idiot, he just has a way he likes to do things, and even if the rest
of the world think another way is better, he isn't comfortable with
it.
Personally, I think if he would give it a good try and get used to
them, he would love them, but that isn't going to happen. I guess I
could be a shit head and belittle him for doing it the other way, and
tell him that his way is stupid, but what would that say about me?
One thing I do know, is that it isn't what kind of pedals we use, nor
what kind of computer we use that defines who we are, but how we
interact and treat others. At the end of the day, I still try to take
the high road, and treat others with respect. After all, I am
certainly not so foolish as to believe that my way is the only right
way of doing things.
-hh
> Â -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > jerryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [Windows-centric stuff]
>
> > > Now, add to that the fact that on Windows, I can open a live html page
> > > via FTP with Frontpage to make a quick change on the fly, and I can do
> > > it in about 20 seconds. On the Apple, I have to...
>
> > FWIW, I'm moderately surprised that you considered this approach at
> > all. Â The way that I would have personally done it would have been to
> > install Parallels and run Windows within a session,
>
> Heck, download, install, and run it under VirtualBox, which works quite
> well, and is free, to boot.
I wasn't aware of that one....in any case, there's a couple of
different choices and I wasn't really trying to differentiate, other
than to pick something other than Boot Camp.
-hh
Steve Hix
<c8b54f51-c691-45cb...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
It's certainly easier to switch between OS environments at will, rather
than reboot the machine to use one or the other.
Choosing the first path, you again have the choice to pay/use Parallels
or VMWare if particularly-high performance is really needed for some
reason, and VirtualBox can't quite make the cut.
Choice is good.
Wally
449e8c73-3663-4a62...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com,
"jerryeveretts" <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:04锟絘m, Wally <Wa...@wallyworld.net> wrote:
>> On 17/02/10 7:02 AM, in article
>> d0ad14d0-d110-4b39-b61e-ecb5da420...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,
>>
>>
>>
>> "jerryeveretts" <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 5:47锟絧m, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <746d4b6f-3def-4c92-ad79-24dc0ce9b...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>>> 锟絡erryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 16, 1:25锟絧m, Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:34:16 -0800, Tommy the Troll wrote
>>>>>> (in article <75bln5t93qi4l6r29rskkepred5pe7o...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:13:07 -0800 (PST), jerryeveretts
>>>>>>> <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
>>>>>>>> bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
>>>>>>>> working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
>>>>>>>> been a complete disaster. I hate to give it to Muah and Tommy and the
>>>>>>>> likes, but good grief, I am tired of banging my head against the wall
>>>>>>>> here.
>>
>>>>>>>> I sold my Macbook Pro on ebay this evening for about $1000.00. I
>>>>>>>> bought a brand new HP laptop with Windows 7 for $700.00. It only has a
>>>>>>>> 2.2Ghz Core 2 vs. the Macbooks 2.4. But it comes with 4GB DDR3 (Max
>>>>>>>> 8), and it has a 500GB 7200RPM drive, and a Radeon HD4650 with 1GB of
>>>>>>>> GDDR3! It still has a LED screen, but also has esata port. Both have
>>>>>>>> wireless N and both spec out very close. I do like the numeric keypad
>>>>>>>> on the HP though.
>>
>>>>>>>> I am going to say goodbye to Apple for good this time. I sold my
>>>>>>>> iPhone on ebay when the Droid came out and haven't looked back since.
>>
>>>>>>>> In my completely honest opinion, almost everything I had to do was
>>>>>>>> more difficult and took more steps on OSX than on Windows. I was
>>>>>>>> cursing this laptop more often than I would like to admit.
>>
>>>>>>> That sure matches my experience with Mac OS. 锟絋hings that are so easy
>>>>>>> and intuitive in Windows take so long to figure out.
>>
>>>>>> Ever stop to think that this is because you expect and WANT Macs to work
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> Windows and when they don't you have to stop and figure out 锟絟ow the Mac
I don't think that I stated that you did, I merely stated that the part of
your Mac experience that appears to not have gone so well appears to be as a
direct result of your intransigence wrt leaning something new!
> Also, why should I have learn
> something new, when something that already works, and is faster and
> cheaper is available.
Surely the very fact that at some point you chose to give the Mac a go is
the answer to that question, or did you seriously believe there would be no
learning involved in the transition?
> I tasted the Kool aid, and it isn't quite as
> sweet as you guys claim.
That is clearly because you firmly expected two products to have the same
taste, whereas I for example have tasted both and can appreciate the
difference between the two.
Steve Carroll
> That's it, I give up.
You should... your 'soft trolling' technique never really worked for
me;)
John Slade
> In article
> <38073b2b-062a-4eb8...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
>> bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
>> working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
>> been a complete disaster. I hate to give it to Muah and Tommy and the
>> likes, but good grief, I am tired of banging my head against the wall
>> here.
>>
>> I sold my Macbook Pro on ebay this evening for about $1000.00. I
>> bought a brand new HP laptop with Windows 7 for $700.00. It only has a
>> 2.2Ghz Core 2 vs. the Macbooks 2.4. But it comes with 4GB DDR3 (Max
>> 8), and it has a 500GB 7200RPM drive, and a Radeon HD4650 with 1GB of
>> GDDR3! It still has a LED screen, but also has esata port. Both have
>> wireless N and both spec out very close. I do like the numeric keypad
>> on the HP though.
>>
>> I am going to say goodbye to Apple for good this time. I sold my
>> iPhone on ebay when the Droid came out and haven't looked back since.
>>
>> In my completely honest opinion, almost everything I had to do was
>> more difficult and took more steps on OSX than on Windows. I was
>> cursing this laptop more often than I would like to admit.
>
I don't.
John
ZnU
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Based on your extensive experience doing web development on OS X, I'm
sure.
ZnU
<faeb36f3-38b8-4ea1...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
jerryeveretts <ifre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:02�am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <38073b2b-062a-4eb8-8ff8-bfe5c13dc...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �jerryeveretts <ifree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's it, I give up. I honestly gave it a good try this time. I
> > > bought a very nice used Macbook Pro 15. For the most part it is
> > > working well. Anything I have to do related to web development has
> > > been a complete disaster.
> >
> > A little more details, please. I do 95% web development in my business
> > and I use 100% Macs for that. What about the Mac made this difficult?
> > I'm genuinely curious.
> >
> > --
> > Sandman[.net]
>
> 3 things were horrible to me.... first off, my developement team
> uses .net and mssql. Now I don't specifically develop myself, but
> frequently have to make a lot of html changes. I used to use
> Frontpage, and with that set up for FTP, I could just open the website
> with Windows Explorer, make a quick chane with Frontpage and save it.
> I tried to use iWeb but holy crap, that is one big stinking pile of
> crap, I never found anything as good as Frontpage, I ended up using
> Sea Monkey, in conjuction with Filezilla, which got the job done, but
> two programs, one to download a copy via FTP, one to make changes,
> then back to Filezilla to upload changes....
Well, there's at least a couple of things seriously wrong here. First,
you're apparently trying to use iWeb, a consumer tool intended to build
entire web sites based on templates, as a tool to edit individual HTML
pages in a professional context. This makes no sense. Second, there are
about a half dozen Mac FTP clients that will let you open files in an
editor with one click, and automatically re-upload them when you save. I
assume you didn't find one of these because you decided to just go with
a cross-platform tool you already knew about.
Finally... who actually still uses WYSIWYG HTML editing tools in 2010?
These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved death in
professional markets years ago with the rise of semantic HTML and CSS.
Particularly using WYSIWYG tools to create HTML that developers are
going to have to work with directly just seems cruel.
> Second problem is the way it handles my Camera and pictures. For
> whatever reason, it will only open my camera (Nikon) with iPhoto, it
> will not mount it as a volume in Finder. So in Windows when posting
> ebay auctions. I could take a bunch of pictures, then just plug the
> camera in and it would show up in explorer, and from the ebay screen
> upload directly from the camera. Now on the Mac I have to plug the
> camera in, then iphoto opens, import the pictures, then drag the
> pictures from iphoto to a folder on my desktop then upload them to
> ebay.
Try Image Capture. You can set that to open instead of iPhoto when your
camera is connected, and download directly into a folder of your choice.
> Third is the lack of a quick and easy way to play music. I have about
> 100,000 songs in my library, and it takes iTunes a fair amount of time
> to load up. If I just want to play a sound clip, I wish there was a
> way to do that natively without loading the whole itunes library.
QuickTime Player. Or directly in the Finder.
> Another problem is with video playback... can't play back many types
> including a lot of .avi files, finally downloaded VLC or something
> like that, it had a traffic cone for the icon. It worked, but there we
> go, another program needed to do something simple. When I tried to
> take that .avi that wouldn't play, Which was my nieces birthday BTW,
> and burn it to a DVD, I used iDVD, but it had no idea what to do with
> the file, so I bought Roxio Toast, and that said I was missing a
> Codec, so I just ended up doing it over in Windows 7.
http://perian.org/ QuickTime codec pack.
> I know a lot of this is because I am not used to the Mac, but still..
> isn't this supposed to be an easy and wonderful experience? I would
> like my computer to not make me have to solve puzzles to get my work
> done.
You could have gotten answers to these questions in about five minutes.
You decided to abandon the platform before even asking.
> Couple all that with the fact that I found a more powerful computer
> from HP that cost significantly less brand new, than my Apple is worth
> used. and I am going with the HP, and putting thre rest of the money
> into things I like to do.
Have fun.
Snit
2/17/10 9:52 PM:
>> 3 things were horrible to me.... first off, my developement team
>> uses .net and mssql. Now I don't specifically develop myself, but
>> frequently have to make a lot of html changes. I used to use
>> Frontpage, and with that set up for FTP, I could just open the website
>> with Windows Explorer, make a quick chane with Frontpage and save it.
>> I tried to use iWeb but holy crap, that is one big stinking pile of
>> crap, I never found anything as good as Frontpage, I ended up using
>> Sea Monkey, in conjuction with Filezilla, which got the job done, but
>> two programs, one to download a copy via FTP, one to make changes,
>> then back to Filezilla to upload changes....
>
> Well, there's at least a couple of things seriously wrong here. First,
> you're apparently trying to use iWeb, a consumer tool intended to build
> entire web sites based on templates, as a tool to edit individual HTML
> pages in a professional context. This makes no sense. Second, there are
> about a half dozen Mac FTP clients that will let you open files in an
> editor with one click, and automatically re-upload them when you save. I
> assume you didn't find one of these because you decided to just go with
> a cross-platform tool you already knew about.
>
> Finally... who actually still uses WYSIWYG HTML editing tools in 2010?
> These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved death in
> professional markets years ago with the rise of semantic HTML and CSS.
> Particularly using WYSIWYG tools to create HTML that developers are
> going to have to work with directly just seems cruel.
Dreamweaver, which is largely a WYSIWYG tool, is still quite popular.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I haven't encountered anyone using it professionally in about a decade.
Maybe it's still used by the "pros" doing $800 web sites for Bar Mitzvah
video companies or something.
Snit
2/18/10 1:16 AM:
The fact you personally do not know of many says little. It is still rather
popular... one of the reasons Adobe has it as a a part of four of its
suites.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
It isn't.
--
Sandman[.net]
jerryeveretts
I'll try to go a little harder on you in the future :)
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Given my level of engagement with the industry, I do not believe that
is the case.
> It is still rather popular... one of the reasons Adobe has it as a a
> part of four of its suites.
I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are people who
could be properly called professional web developers or web designers.
Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG features are worse than useless for constructing
modern semantically structured pages with CSS-based layout... and that's
before we even get into the issues involved with mixing WYSIWYG layout
tools with things like progressive JavaScript enhancement and web
framework view code.
Snit
2/18/10 10:45 AM:
>>>>> Finally... who actually still uses WYSIWYG HTML editing tools in
>>>>> 2010? These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved death
>>>>> in professional markets years ago with the rise of semantic HTML
>>>>> and CSS. Particularly using WYSIWYG tools to create HTML that
>>>>> developers are going to have to work with directly just seems
>>>>> cruel.
>>>>
>>>> Dreamweaver, which is largely a WYSIWYG tool, is still quite
>>>> popular.
>>>
>>> I haven't encountered anyone using it professionally in about a
>>> decade. Maybe it's still used by the "pros" doing $800 web sites
>>> for Bar Mitzvah video companies or something.
>>
>> The fact you personally do not know of many says little.
>
> Given my level of engagement with the industry, I do not believe that
> is the case.
It might be a regional thing. I know in my small city there are at several
shops who use it pretty heavily (though none that I know of exclusively)
>> It is still rather popular... one of the reasons Adobe has it as a a
>> part of four of its suites.
>
> I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
> Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are people who
> could be properly called professional web developers or web designers.
>
> Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG features are worse than useless for constructing
> modern semantically structured pages with CSS-based layout... and that's
> before we even get into the issues involved with mixing WYSIWYG layout
> tools with things like progressive JavaScript enhancement and web
> framework view code.
Even most Intro books on Dreamweaver will cover CSS layout - check out
Dreamweaver for Dummies. With that said, there is a lot of room for growth
there in the program. It does have its own mediocre AJAX component and
there are plenty of free extensions to help with MOO tools and YAI... and,
of course, people can do what I do and just use the code view when working
with those things.
With that said, while I do design and build web sites, I certainly do not
consider myself a pro in JavaScript, PHP, or many other important web
technologies (to call myself a novice in these things is to be kind). I am
well aware there are many CMSs out there which are becoming more and more
popular.
I am also disappointed in the rumors of DW CS5... seems they are not going
to be adding HTML5/CSS3 compatibility to it. I hope the rumors are wrong.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > It is still rather popular... one of the reasons Adobe has it as a a
> > part of four of its suites.
>
> I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
> Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are people who
> could be properly called professional web developers or web designers.
>
> Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG features are worse than useless for constructing
> modern semantically structured pages with CSS-based layout... and that's
> before we even get into the issues involved with mixing WYSIWYG layout
> tools with things like progressive JavaScript enhancement and web
> framework view code.
Just like you can't understand why anyone would respond to Edwin, I
can't see the reason why you're even trying to get Snit to understand
what the professional web developer market looks like...
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
2/18/10 12:44 PM:
You are the one who denied that parts of the Adobe Suite were professional
programs. That was laughable.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-62BED8.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/18/10 10:45 AM:
>
> >>>>> Finally... who actually still uses WYSIWYG HTML editing tools in
> >>>>> 2010? These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved death
> >>>>> in professional markets years ago with the rise of semantic HTML
> >>>>> and CSS. Particularly using WYSIWYG tools to create HTML that
> >>>>> developers are going to have to work with directly just seems
> >>>>> cruel.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dreamweaver, which is largely a WYSIWYG tool, is still quite
> >>>> popular.
> >>>
> >>> I haven't encountered anyone using it professionally in about a
> >>> decade. Maybe it's still used by the "pros" doing $800 web sites
> >>> for Bar Mitzvah video companies or something.
> >>
> >> The fact you personally do not know of many says little.
> >
> > Given my level of engagement with the industry, I do not believe that
> > is the case.
>
> It might be a regional thing. I know in my small city there are at several
> shops who use it pretty heavily (though none that I know of exclusively)
Could you provide some URLs? I'd like to see the work.
> >> It is still rather popular... one of the reasons Adobe has it as a a
> >> part of four of its suites.
> >
> > I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
> > Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are people who
> > could be properly called professional web developers or web designers.
> >
> > Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG features are worse than useless for constructing
> > modern semantically structured pages with CSS-based layout... and that's
> > before we even get into the issues involved with mixing WYSIWYG layout
> > tools with things like progressive JavaScript enhancement and web
> > framework view code.
>
> Even most Intro books on Dreamweaver will cover CSS layout - check out
> Dreamweaver for Dummies. With that said, there is a lot of room for growth
> there in the program. It does have its own mediocre AJAX component and
> there are plenty of free extensions to help with MOO tools and YAI... and,
> of course, people can do what I do and just use the code view when working
> with those things.
It's not so much that it's totally impossible to do these things in DW
-- I mean, it has a text editor, so ultimately you can do pretty much
anything.
It's that it doesn't really make any sense. With modern web development
practices, your HTML is (ideally) purely semantic, with all layout being
handled in CSS. WYSIWYG in-place content editing is fundamentally
incompatible with this approach. While you can shoehorn the use of CSS
into such an environment, you have to largely abandon semantically
meaningful HTML to do so.
[snip]
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I'm guessing there's some history here that I've missed by having Snit
and replies to his posts killfiled for a couple of years. This should be
entertaining.
Snit
2/18/10 7:43 PM:
> In article <C7A2D3CC.65420%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-62BED8.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/18/10 10:45 AM:
>>
>>>>>>> Finally... who actually still uses WYSIWYG HTML editing tools in
>>>>>>> 2010? These sorts of tools basically died a much-deserved death
>>>>>>> in professional markets years ago with the rise of semantic HTML
>>>>>>> and CSS. Particularly using WYSIWYG tools to create HTML that
>>>>>>> developers are going to have to work with directly just seems
>>>>>>> cruel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dreamweaver, which is largely a WYSIWYG tool, is still quite
>>>>>> popular.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't encountered anyone using it professionally in about a
>>>>> decade. Maybe it's still used by the "pros" doing $800 web sites
>>>>> for Bar Mitzvah video companies or something.
>>>>
>>>> The fact you personally do not know of many says little.
>>>
>>> Given my level of engagement with the industry, I do not believe that
>>> is the case.
>>
>> It might be a regional thing. I know in my small city there are at several
>> shops who use it pretty heavily (though none that I know of exclusively)
>
> Could you provide some URLs? I'd like to see the work.
Hmmm, checking now, at least one of the ones I was thinking of is no longer
in business. Kinda funny:
<http://www.parisiangroup.com/>
Another, with an web page with nothing to brag about:
Some others:
<http://www.bullerinetworks.com/>
Though their page does not seem to be from Dreamweaver I know they use it a
lot in their work.
Under new management as of a few years ago now, and I do not know what the
new management uses... but they used to. Looking at their site now I do not
see web design as a service.
Some others I have known people who have worked with:
<http://www.smartwebby.com/>
<http://www.4adesign.com/>
I know next to nothing about them other than what they say on their
websites.
>>>> It is still rather popular... one of the reasons Adobe has it as a a
>>>> part of four of its suites.
>>>
>>> I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
>>> Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are people who
>>> could be properly called professional web developers or web designers.
>>>
>>> Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG features are worse than useless for constructing
>>> modern semantically structured pages with CSS-based layout... and that's
>>> before we even get into the issues involved with mixing WYSIWYG layout
>>> tools with things like progressive JavaScript enhancement and web
>>> framework view code.
>>
>> Even most Intro books on Dreamweaver will cover CSS layout - check out
>> Dreamweaver for Dummies. With that said, there is a lot of room for growth
>> there in the program. It does have its own mediocre AJAX component and
>> there are plenty of free extensions to help with MOO tools and YAI... and,
>> of course, people can do what I do and just use the code view when working
>> with those things.
>
> It's not so much that it's totally impossible to do these things in DW
> -- I mean, it has a text editor, so ultimately you can do pretty much
> anything.
>
> It's that it doesn't really make any sense. With modern web development
> practices, your HTML is (ideally) purely semantic, with all layout being
> handled in CSS.
Good in theory... in practice few websites are doing this (though that is
changing)
> WYSIWYG in-place content editing is fundamentally incompatible with this
> approach. While you can shoehorn the use of CSS into such an environment, you
> have to largely abandon semantically meaningful HTML to do so.
Why do you think this?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> ZnU stated in post znu-B7DBE2.21431418022...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/18/10 7:43 PM:
<snip>
> >>>>> I haven't encountered anyone using it professionally in about a
> >>>>> decade. Maybe it's still used by the "pros" doing $800 web sites
> >>>>> for Bar Mitzvah video companies or something.
>
> >>>> The fact you personally do not know of many says little.
>
> >>> Given my level of engagement with the industry, I do not believe that
> >>> is the case.
>
> >> It might be a regional thing. Â I know in my small city there are at several
> >> shops who use it pretty heavily (though none that I know of exclusively)
>
> > Could you provide some URLs? I'd like to see the work.
>
> Hmmm, checking now, at least one of the ones I was thinking of is no longer
> in business. Â Kinda funny:
>
> Â Â <http://www.parisiangroup.com/>
>
> Another, with an web page with nothing to brag about:
>
> Â Â <http://www.thepcworks.com/>
nor their portfolio- it supports what znu said. looks like a bunch of
cheap site templates that they toss in some basic info into, and
design certainly isn't their thing.
> Some others:
>
> Â Â <http://www.bullerinetworks.com/>
a isp that doesn't even mention web design - other than that they use
green elephant. which doesn't do $800 pages- they do $500 pages. ;D
> Though their page does not seem to be from Dreamweaver I know they use it a
> lot in their work.
>
> Â Â <http://www.argosywest.com>
>
> Under new management as of a few years ago now, and I do not know what the
> new management uses... but they used to. Â Looking at their site now I do not
> see web design as a service.
so... you're listing it even though it does nothing whatsoever to
support your point because...?
> Some others I have known people who have worked with:
>
> Â Â <http://www.smartwebby.com/>
> Â Â <http://www.4adesign.com/>
so you say maybe it's a regional thing, then provide examples from
india and minnesota? :P
<snip>
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Yeah, um. In my professional opinion, all of that stuff is very
seriously low-end. It's pretty much exactly the sort of stuff I had in
mind with the comment about people doing $800 web sites for Bar Mitzvah
video companies.
> > It's that it doesn't really make any sense. With modern web
> > development practices, your HTML is (ideally) purely semantic, with
> > all layout being handled in CSS.
>
> Good in theory... in practice few websites are doing this (though
> that is changing)
It's a lot more common than I think you suspect. It's not always done to
quite the extent it should be, but if you take a look at the basic
structure, of, say, the Apple or NY Times or Google web sites, you'll
see a lot of divs with semantically meaningful names, navigation bars
that are stylized unordered lists, etc.
> > WYSIWYG in-place content editing is fundamentally incompatible with
> > this approach. While you can shoehorn the use of CSS into such an
> > environment, you have to largely abandon semantically meaningful
> > HTML to do so.
>
> Why do you think this?
Is this not obvious? HTML, in modern practice, represents structure; it
doesn't define a specific visual presentation. Visual presentation is
defined through CSS rules. These *should* target specific DOM elements
through semantically meaningful element names, class names, ids, and
relationships given to those elements by the designer/developer.
But if some WYSIWYG app is creating CSS rules in response to the user
selecting some text and applying a style, the software has no way of
inferring semantic information from that action. It can only associate
that CSS rules with that bit of text by applying some semantically
meaningless class or id to the text in question and using that to bind
the CSS rule.
This can be somewhat mitigated in trivial cases by allowing the user to
define styles with semantically meaningful names and apply them to
multiple elements. But this approach breaks down very quickly when you
move beyond simple character and paragraph styles. And the user can't
ever take advantage of CSS's ability to target elements via
relationships with this approach.
Snit
2/18/10 7:43 PM:
> In article <mr-2F9357.20...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <znu-62BED8.1...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is still rather popular... one of the reasons Adobe has it as a a
>>>> part of four of its suites.
>>>
>>> I can believe there are still a fair number of people who use
>>> Dreamweaver. I just seriously doubt that many of them are people who
>>> could be properly called professional web developers or web designers.
>>>
>>> Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG features are worse than useless for constructing
>>> modern semantically structured pages with CSS-based layout... and that's
>>> before we even get into the issues involved with mixing WYSIWYG layout
>>> tools with things like progressive JavaScript enhancement and web
>>> framework view code.
>>
>> Just like you can't understand why anyone would respond to Edwin, I
>> can't see the reason why you're even trying to get Snit to understand
>> what the professional web developer market looks like...
>
> I'm guessing there's some history here that I've missed by having Snit
> and replies to his posts killfiled for a couple of years. This should be
> entertaining.
Pretty much came down to Sandman insisting that Dreamweaver is not a pro
level tool... making it the only non-pro level tool in the Adobe suite for
some reason Sandman could never explain. Likely had to do with the fact he
knows I teach Dreamweaver and was trying to put down my skills.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/19/10 12:40 AM:
...
>>> Could you provide some URLs? I'd like to see the work.
>>
>> Hmmm, checking now, at least one of the ones I was thinking of is no longer
>> in business. Kinda funny:
>>
>> <http://www.parisiangroup.com/>
>>
>> Another, with an web page with nothing to brag about:
>>
>> <http://www.thepcworks.com/>
>>
>> Some others:
>>
>> <http://www.bullerinetworks.com/>
>>
>> Though their page does not seem to be from Dreamweaver I know they use it a
>> lot in their work.
>>
>> <http://www.argosywest.com>
>>
>> Under new management as of a few years ago now, and I do not know what the
>> new management uses... but they used to. Looking at their site now I do not
>> see web design as a service.
>>
>> Some others I have known people who have worked with:
>>
>> <http://www.smartwebby.com/>
>> <http://www.4adesign.com/>
>>
>> I know next to nothing about them other than what they say on their
>> websites.
>
> Yeah, um. In my professional opinion, all of that stuff is very
> seriously low-end. It's pretty much exactly the sort of stuff I had in
> mind with the comment about people doing $800 web sites for Bar Mitzvah
> video companies.
A little more than that. I am not saying it is used for the Amazon site
though (or others at that level). But there are a lot of pros who earn
decent livings making sites in the several thousand dollar level... I have
made a number of such sites, though there are folks who do a *lot* more of
that type work than I do.
>>> It's that it doesn't really make any sense. With modern web
>>> development practices, your HTML is (ideally) purely semantic, with
>>> all layout being handled in CSS.
>>
>> Good in theory... in practice few websites are doing this (though
>> that is changing)
>
> It's a lot more common than I think you suspect. It's not always done to
> quite the extent it should be, but if you take a look at the basic
> structure, of, say, the Apple or NY Times or Google web sites, you'll
> see a lot of divs with semantically meaningful names, navigation bars
> that are stylized unordered lists, etc.
Yes, the biggies are moving that way... and even smaller sites. If you want
to see how many are table-based, though, use Firefox with Web Developer and
tables outlined with the persistent feature turned on.
>>> WYSIWYG in-place content editing is fundamentally incompatible with
>>> this approach. While you can shoehorn the use of CSS into such an
>>> environment, you have to largely abandon semantically meaningful
>>> HTML to do so.
>>
>> Why do you think this?
>
> Is this not obvious? HTML, in modern practice, represents structure; it
> doesn't define a specific visual presentation. Visual presentation is
> defined through CSS rules. These *should* target specific DOM elements
> through semantically meaningful element names, class names, ids, and
> relationships given to those elements by the designer/developer.
>
> But if some WYSIWYG app is creating CSS rules in response to the user
> selecting some text and applying a style, the software has no way of
> inferring semantic information from that action. It can only associate
> that CSS rules with that bit of text by applying some semantically
> meaningless class or id to the text in question and using that to bind
> the CSS rule.
As of Dreamweaver CS4, Dreamweaver no longer does that. The days of
".style1" are dead. Thankfully.
> This can be somewhat mitigated in trivial cases by allowing the user to
> define styles with semantically meaningful names and apply them to
> multiple elements. But this approach breaks down very quickly when you
> move beyond simple character and paragraph styles. And the user can't
> ever take advantage of CSS's ability to target elements via
> relationships with this approach.
Perhaps you are not familiar with modern Dreamweaver. It and the materials
to work with it are very much focused on making semantically meaningful CSS
layouts. Here are just some examples:
Dreamweaver CS4: The Missing Manual
Adobe Dreamweaver CS4 How-Tos: 100 Essential Techniques
The Essential Guide to Dreamweaver CS4 with CSS, Ajax, and PHP (Essentials)
Dreamweaver CS4 Digital Classroom
Dreamweaver CS4 for Windows and Macintosh: Visual QuickStart Guide
Dreamweaver CS4 For Dummies
Adobe Dreamweaver CS4 Classroom in a Book
Dreamweaver CS4 Bible
All of those focus quite heavily on CSS layout / design. I have a number of
those books, so if you have specific questions on how they do so I can look
it up for at least a number of those. To check that I went to Amazon.com
and looked for Dreamweaver CS 4 in books... most have their TOC available.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Without getting into an elaborate debate over the meaning of the word
"pro", I would say that is basically accurate. It has essentially no
place in modern professional web design or development except perhaps at
the very bottom of the market.
> making it the only non-pro level tool in the Adobe suite for some
> reason Sandman could never explain.
The reason seems fairly obvious to me. Actual legitimate pros used to
use tools like Dreamweaver, before a lot of new technologies came along
and made the WYSIWYG approach unsuitable. The product remains part of
Creative Suite mostly through simple inertia.
> Likely had to do with the fact he knows I teach Dreamweaver and was
> trying to put down my skills.
There's nothing especially wrong with teaching Dreamweaver as an
introduction to web development.
Well, let me amend that. There's nothing especially wrong with teaching
Dreamweaver to people who don't intend to become professional web
developers. IMO, starting off people who eventually intend to become
professional web developers with a WYSIWYG tool would be actively
detrimental.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Do you believe that someone who isn't capable of hand-coding a site
should identify themselves a professional web developer?
[snip]
> All of those focus quite heavily on CSS layout / design. I have a number of
> those books, so if you have specific questions on how they do so I can look
> it up for at least a number of those. To check that I went to Amazon.com
> and looked for Dreamweaver CS 4 in books... most have their TOC available.
To the extent that DW is useful for these sorts of things today, it is
primarily because Adobe has made some concessions to the non-WYSIWYG
model. But there is very little reason to use DW anymore if you don't
care about WYSIWYG tools. It's not like it has the world's most
brilliant text editor or anything.
In point of fact, I rather suspect most people who understood why
WYSIWYG was unsuitable for modern web development abandoned DW years
ago, meaning that the problems for Dreamweaver aren't even strictly
technical anymore; they're also related to the character of its
remaining user base. Not having abandoned DW years back is effectively a
marker for cluelessness about the conceptual underpinnings of the modern
web. I doubt the people who didn't get this stuff will suddenly
understand it because Adobe added a couple of features to support it.
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG features are worse than useless for constructing
> > > modern semantically structured pages with CSS-based layout... and that's
> > > before we even get into the issues involved with mixing WYSIWYG layout
> > > tools with things like progressive JavaScript enhancement and web
> > > framework view code.
> >
> > Just like you can't understand why anyone would respond to Edwin, I
> > can't see the reason why you're even trying to get Snit to understand
> > what the professional web developer market looks like...
>
> I'm guessing there's some history here that I've missed by having Snit
> and replies to his posts killfiled for a couple of years. This should be
> entertaining.
No, please don't. Just abandon the thread.
I, too, have Snit killfiled nowadays.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
2/19/10 1:53 AM:
...
>>> I'm guessing there's some history here that I've missed by having
>>> Snit and replies to his posts killfiled for a couple of years. This
>>> should be entertaining.
>>
>> Pretty much came down to Sandman insisting that Dreamweaver is not a
>> pro level tool...
>
> Without getting into an elaborate debate over the meaning of the word
> "pro", I would say that is basically accurate. It has essentially no
> place in modern professional web design or development except perhaps at
> the very bottom of the market.
So why include it in the pro suite?
>> making it the only non-pro level tool in the Adobe suite for some
>> reason Sandman could never explain.
>
> The reason seems fairly obvious to me. Actual legitimate pros used to
> use tools like Dreamweaver, before a lot of new technologies came along
> and made the WYSIWYG approach unsuitable. The product remains part of
> Creative Suite mostly through simple inertia.
It was not a part of CS until CS3... it used to be owned by Macromedia.
>> Likely had to do with the fact he knows I teach Dreamweaver and was
>> trying to put down my skills.
>
> There's nothing especially wrong with teaching Dreamweaver as an
> introduction to web development.
>
> Well, let me amend that. There's nothing especially wrong with teaching
> Dreamweaver to people who don't intend to become professional web
> developers. IMO, starting off people who eventually intend to become
> professional web developers with a WYSIWYG tool would be actively
> detrimental.
Curious: what tools would you suggest instead?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/19/10 2:05 AM:
...
>>> Yeah, um. In my professional opinion, all of that stuff is very
>>> seriously low-end. It's pretty much exactly the sort of stuff I had in
>>> mind with the comment about people doing $800 web sites for Bar Mitzvah
>>> video companies.
>>
>> A little more than that. I am not saying it is used for the Amazon site
>> though (or others at that level). But there are a lot of pros who earn
>> decent livings making sites in the several thousand dollar level... I have
>> made a number of such sites, though there are folks who do a *lot* more of
>> that type work than I do.
>
> Do you believe that someone who isn't capable of hand-coding a site
> should identify themselves a professional web developer?
This presupposes that people who use code generators of whatever sort are
not capable of working without them. This is a false assumption.
>> All of those focus quite heavily on CSS layout / design. I have a number of
>> those books, so if you have specific questions on how they do so I can look
>> it up for at least a number of those. To check that I went to Amazon.com
>> and looked for Dreamweaver CS 4 in books... most have their TOC available.
>
> To the extent that DW is useful for these sorts of things today, it is
> primarily because Adobe has made some concessions to the non-WYSIWYG
> model. But there is very little reason to use DW anymore if you don't
> care about WYSIWYG tools. It's not like it has the world's most
> brilliant text editor or anything.
Having a WYSIWYG tool - or one that has that as a good part of its focus -
is not a bad thing. Do you ever program in PostScript or do you just use
word processors and other similar tools?
> In point of fact, I rather suspect most people who understood why
> WYSIWYG was unsuitable for modern web development abandoned DW years
> ago, meaning that the problems for Dreamweaver aren't even strictly
> technical anymore; they're also related to the character of its
> remaining user base. Not having abandoned DW years back is effectively a
> marker for cluelessness about the conceptual underpinnings of the modern
> web. I doubt the people who didn't get this stuff will suddenly
> understand it because Adobe added a couple of features to support it.
What ideas do you think Dreamweaver works against? Again, it does nothing
to work against semantic CSS layout and plenty to support it. This is not
to say it does not have room for improvement, but it is not as though it
works counter to good design practices.
Heck, what tool works better in that area?
The main place where DW is no longer relevant is in the world of CMSs.
Dreamweaver templates and the like are simply no match (and not really meant
to be). Even there Adobe has moved to make DW more capable, but it is still
no CMS.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Edwin
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-CDA34D.0...@Port80.Individual.NET...
"Now I don't specifically develop myself, but
frequently have to make a lot of html changes."
Jerry never identified himself as a professional web developer. You're
telling that lie to have a foundation to build your straw man arguments
upon.
[snip]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-880386.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 1:53 AM:
>
> ...
> >>> I'm guessing there's some history here that I've missed by having
> >>> Snit and replies to his posts killfiled for a couple of years. This
> >>> should be entertaining.
> >>
> >> Pretty much came down to Sandman insisting that Dreamweaver is not a
> >> pro level tool...
> >
> > Without getting into an elaborate debate over the meaning of the word
> > "pro", I would say that is basically accurate. It has essentially no
> > place in modern professional web design or development except perhaps at
> > the very bottom of the market.
>
> So why include it in the pro suite?
The only way the argument you're making here is going to change my mind
is if it causes me to say "Oh, well, sure I'm a professional web
developer, I know from extensive direct experience what that entails,
and Dreamweaver isn't really a useful part of that. But it must be a
tool for professional web developers because Adobe included is with
Creative Suite."
You really think that's going to work?
> >> making it the only non-pro level tool in the Adobe suite for some
> >> reason Sandman could never explain.
> >
> > The reason seems fairly obvious to me. Actual legitimate pros used to
> > use tools like Dreamweaver, before a lot of new technologies came along
> > and made the WYSIWYG approach unsuitable. The product remains part of
> > Creative Suite mostly through simple inertia.
>
> It was not a part of CS until CS3... it used to be owned by Macromedia.
Yes, but Adobe used it to replace its own GoLive tool. The same logic
applies.
> >> Likely had to do with the fact he knows I teach Dreamweaver and was
> >> trying to put down my skills.
> >
> > There's nothing especially wrong with teaching Dreamweaver as an
> > introduction to web development.
> >
> > Well, let me amend that. There's nothing especially wrong with teaching
> > Dreamweaver to people who don't intend to become professional web
> > developers. IMO, starting off people who eventually intend to become
> > professional web developers with a WYSIWYG tool would be actively
> > detrimental.
>
> Curious: what tools would you suggest instead?
On the Mac, either Coda or Textmate + CSSEdit as your desktop tools. And
you really might as well start teaching web and JavaScript frameworks
right off the bat as well, plus skills like building WordPress themes
and integrating other content management software, since the paid market
for static web sites is virtually nonexistent these days.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-CDA34D.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 2:05 AM:
>
> ...
> >>> Yeah, um. In my professional opinion, all of that stuff is very
> >>> seriously low-end. It's pretty much exactly the sort of stuff I
> >>> had in mind with the comment about people doing $800 web sites
> >>> for Bar Mitzvah video companies.
> >>
> >> A little more than that. I am not saying it is used for the
> >> Amazon site though (or others at that level). But there are a lot
> >> of pros who earn decent livings making sites in the several
> >> thousand dollar level... I have made a number of such sites,
> >> though there are folks who do a *lot* more of that type work than
> >> I do.
> >
> > Do you believe that someone who isn't capable of hand-coding a site
> > should identify themselves a professional web developer?
>
> This presupposes that people who use code generators of whatever sort
> are not capable of working without them. This is a false assumption.
It merely presupposes that people creating semantic HTML + CSS layouts
aren't going to be using Dreamweaver. Which, if you understand how
useless it is to this task, is not an unreasonable thing to assume.
> >> All of those focus quite heavily on CSS layout / design. I have a
> >> number of those books, so if you have specific questions on how
> >> they do so I can look it up for at least a number of those. To
> >> check that I went to Amazon.com and looked for Dreamweaver CS 4 in
> >> books... most have their TOC available.
> >
> > To the extent that DW is useful for these sorts of things today, it
> > is primarily because Adobe has made some concessions to the
> > non-WYSIWYG model. But there is very little reason to use DW
> > anymore if you don't care about WYSIWYG tools. It's not like it has
> > the world's most brilliant text editor or anything.
>
> Having a WYSIWYG tool - or one that has that as a good part of its
> focus - is not a bad thing. Do you ever program in PostScript or do
> you just use word processors and other similar tools?
The analogy is invalid. PostScript is a language designed for
describing layout, generally without semantic content. The fact that you
would draw this analogy, in fact, tends to support my position that
Dreamweaver fans are basically out to lunch about how the web is
supposed to work.
> > In point of fact, I rather suspect most people who understood why
> > WYSIWYG was unsuitable for modern web development abandoned DW
> > years ago, meaning that the problems for Dreamweaver aren't even
> > strictly technical anymore; they're also related to the character
> > of its remaining user base. Not having abandoned DW years back is
> > effectively a marker for cluelessness about the conceptual
> > underpinnings of the modern web. I doubt the people who didn't get
> > this stuff will suddenly understand it because Adobe added a couple
> > of features to support it.
>
> What ideas do you think Dreamweaver works against?
Among other things, any WYSIWYG model that has the user directly
selecting and styling HTML content works against the conceptual
separation between structure and layout that should be maintained in
modern practice.
[snip]
Snit
2/19/10 11:10 AM:
> In article <C7A3B6B1.65560%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-880386.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 1:53 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> I'm guessing there's some history here that I've missed by having
>>>>> Snit and replies to his posts killfiled for a couple of years. This
>>>>> should be entertaining.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much came down to Sandman insisting that Dreamweaver is not a
>>>> pro level tool...
>>>
>>> Without getting into an elaborate debate over the meaning of the word
>>> "pro", I would say that is basically accurate. It has essentially no
>>> place in modern professional web design or development except perhaps at
>>> the very bottom of the market.
>>
>> So why include it in the pro suite?
>
> The only way the argument you're making here is going to change my mind
> is if it causes me to say "Oh, well, sure I'm a professional web
> developer, I know from extensive direct experience what that entails,
> and Dreamweaver isn't really a useful part of that. But it must be a
> tool for professional web developers because Adobe included is with
> Creative Suite."
>
> You really think that's going to work?
The question is, if it is not made and designed for the pro market, why
include it in a pro suite, charge pro prices, offer significant EDU price
discounts as is done for other pro products, etc. It clearly is marketed as
a pro tool <http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/>. The idea that it
is there just from inertia is a bit silly, given that it only entered the
suite in the last version.
From Pfeiffer Consulting 2009, The Adobe Creative Suite 4 Benchmark Project;
Real-World Productivity for Web Professionals:
Whether you are a hard-core CSS coder or new to web
development, the combination of Fireworks CS4 and Dreamweaver
CS4 offers a spectacularly simpler�and faster� way to build a
modern web page.
Also, Adobe says that they make Dreamweaver for "web designers, web
developers, and visual designers". You might argue that it is not a good
tool for professionals (that is merely opinion), but to deny it is a tool
made for and marketed to professionals is rather silly - the data is clearly
contrary to that.
Now, this does not mean I expect Amazon.com and the Google online office
apps to have been made primarily with Dreamweaver, or even necessarily to
have had anything to do with them at all.
Your counter to it being a pro tools is, well, you do not think it is. Not
sure what strength you think there is to that argument. Even though I
respect your opinions, just saying something is your opinion is not a strong
argument.
>>>> making it the only non-pro level tool in the Adobe suite for some
>>>> reason Sandman could never explain.
>>>
>>> The reason seems fairly obvious to me. Actual legitimate pros used to
>>> use tools like Dreamweaver, before a lot of new technologies came along
>>> and made the WYSIWYG approach unsuitable. The product remains part of
>>> Creative Suite mostly through simple inertia.
>>
>> It was not a part of CS until CS3... it used to be owned by Macromedia.
>
> Yes, but Adobe used it to replace its own GoLive tool. The same logic
> applies.
It is quite different from GoLive, but, yes, the tools had similar goals.
>>>> Likely had to do with the fact he knows I teach Dreamweaver and was
>>>> trying to put down my skills.
>>>
>>> There's nothing especially wrong with teaching Dreamweaver as an
>>> introduction to web development.
>>>
>>> Well, let me amend that. There's nothing especially wrong with teaching
>>> Dreamweaver to people who don't intend to become professional web
>>> developers. IMO, starting off people who eventually intend to become
>>> professional web developers with a WYSIWYG tool would be actively
>>> detrimental.
>>
>> Curious: what tools would you suggest instead?
>
> On the Mac, either Coda or Textmate + CSSEdit as your desktop tools. And
> you really might as well start teaching web and JavaScript frameworks
> right off the bat as well, plus skills like building WordPress themes
> and integrating other content management software, since the paid market
> for static web sites is virtually nonexistent these days.
Aha. So you are overlapping in what I said - using CMSs is a pretty big
thing and DW is not a CMS by any stretch of the imagination. As far as
using straight text editors, that is hardly something that has to be done in
order to have good code. Oh, and Dreamweaver has its own JavaScript
framework (AJAX) and works well with others. Spend a few minutes searching
through the Dreamweaver Exchange:
<http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=productHome&exc=3>
Also, the idea that Dreamweaver is for static sites only is not completely
off the mark, given that it is often used for that, but it also works with
interactive sites - with its own Spry framework but also with JavaScript,
several other Ajax frameworks, PHP, ColdFusion, ASP, etc.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/19/10 11:21 AM:
> In article <C7A3B7D9.65562%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-CDA34D.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 2:05 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Yeah, um. In my professional opinion, all of that stuff is very
>>>>> seriously low-end. It's pretty much exactly the sort of stuff I
>>>>> had in mind with the comment about people doing $800 web sites
>>>>> for Bar Mitzvah video companies.
>>>>
>>>> A little more than that. I am not saying it is used for the
>>>> Amazon site though (or others at that level). But there are a lot
>>>> of pros who earn decent livings making sites in the several
>>>> thousand dollar level... I have made a number of such sites,
>>>> though there are folks who do a *lot* more of that type work than
>>>> I do.
>>>
>>> Do you believe that someone who isn't capable of hand-coding a site
>>> should identify themselves a professional web developer?
>>
>> This presupposes that people who use code generators of whatever sort
>> are not capable of working without them. This is a false assumption.
>
> It merely presupposes that people creating semantic HTML + CSS layouts
> aren't going to be using Dreamweaver. Which, if you understand how
> useless it is to this task, is not an unreasonable thing to assume.
Again: this is your opinion. The evidence supports the idea that
Dreamweaver is made, marketed to, and priced for the pro market.
>>>> All of those focus quite heavily on CSS layout / design. I have a
>>>> number of those books, so if you have specific questions on how
>>>> they do so I can look it up for at least a number of those. To
>>>> check that I went to Amazon.com and looked for Dreamweaver CS 4 in
>>>> books... most have their TOC available.
>>>
>>> To the extent that DW is useful for these sorts of things today, it
>>> is primarily because Adobe has made some concessions to the
>>> non-WYSIWYG model. But there is very little reason to use DW
>>> anymore if you don't care about WYSIWYG tools. It's not like it has
>>> the world's most brilliant text editor or anything.
>>
>> Having a WYSIWYG tool - or one that has that as a good part of its
>> focus - is not a bad thing. Do you ever program in PostScript or do
>> you just use word processors and other similar tools?
>
> The analogy is invalid. PostScript is a language designed for
> describing layout, generally without semantic content. The fact that you
> would draw this analogy, in fact, tends to support my position that
> Dreamweaver fans are basically out to lunch about how the web is
> supposed to work.
The comment was about code-generators, not semantic code.
>>> In point of fact, I rather suspect most people who understood why
>>> WYSIWYG was unsuitable for modern web development abandoned DW
>>> years ago, meaning that the problems for Dreamweaver aren't even
>>> strictly technical anymore; they're also related to the character
>>> of its remaining user base. Not having abandoned DW years back is
>>> effectively a marker for cluelessness about the conceptual
>>> underpinnings of the modern web. I doubt the people who didn't get
>>> this stuff will suddenly understand it because Adobe added a couple
>>> of features to support it.
>>
>> What ideas do you think Dreamweaver works against?
>
> Among other things, any WYSIWYG model that has the user directly
> selecting and styling HTML content works against the conceptual
> separation between structure and layout that should be maintained in
> modern practice.
In what way? You apply selectors to segments of code and can view them with
different style sheets - either screen and print (etc.) or different ones
you are testing. I do not see this as working against that separation.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Nonsense. You're trying to set this up as opinion vs. evidence, but
you're merely using the fact that Adobe bundles Dreamweaver with
Creative Suite as indirect evidence of Adobe's opinion on this subject.
IOW it's not opinion vs. evidence, but my explicit and justified opinion
vs. what _you claim_ is evidence of a certain opinion on Adobe's part.
Nn opinion Adobe has not explicitly articulated or justified, and an
opinion that Adobe would have a financial motive to slant in a certain
direction as well, I might add.
> >> Having a WYSIWYG tool - or one that has that as a good part of its
> >> focus - is not a bad thing. Do you ever program in PostScript or do
> >> you just use word processors and other similar tools?
> >
> > The analogy is invalid. PostScript is a language designed for
> > describing layout, generally without semantic content. The fact that you
> > would draw this analogy, in fact, tends to support my position that
> > Dreamweaver fans are basically out to lunch about how the web is
> > supposed to work.
>
> The comment was about code-generators, not semantic code.
The comment was about automatically generating PostScript with WYSIWYG
tools vs. automatically generating web pages with WYSIWYG tools. The
fact that HTML represents structure while PostScript represents layout
means the two scenarios are not remotely analogous.
> >>> In point of fact, I rather suspect most people who understood why
> >>> WYSIWYG was unsuitable for modern web development abandoned DW
> >>> years ago, meaning that the problems for Dreamweaver aren't even
> >>> strictly technical anymore; they're also related to the character
> >>> of its remaining user base. Not having abandoned DW years back is
> >>> effectively a marker for cluelessness about the conceptual
> >>> underpinnings of the modern web. I doubt the people who didn't get
> >>> this stuff will suddenly understand it because Adobe added a couple
> >>> of features to support it.
> >>
> >> What ideas do you think Dreamweaver works against?
> >
> > Among other things, any WYSIWYG model that has the user directly
> > selecting and styling HTML content works against the conceptual
> > separation between structure and layout that should be maintained in
> > modern practice.
>
> In what way? You apply selectors to segments of code and can view them with
> different style sheets - either screen and print (etc.) or different ones
> you are testing. I do not see this as working against that separation.
The model it provides actively encourages violation of the
structure/layout separation, while simultaneously providing no
substantial benefit to those who wish to preserve it.
Look, there's really not much to say here. The supposedly professional
web developers you pointed me to who you say use Dreamweaver... their
sites and portfolios make my case much more effectively than any amount
of theoretical argument could.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-364C39.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 11:10 AM:
[snip]
> Your counter to it being a pro tools is, well, you do not think it is. Not
> sure what strength you think there is to that argument. Even though I
> respect your opinions, just saying something is your opinion is not a strong
> argument.
Your counter to my considered professional opinion (backed up by the
sorry examples of supposedly professional Dreamweaver users that you
provided) appears to be "Well, the people who sell Dreamweaver don't
publicly admit that it's not really useful to professional web
developers".
This is not especially compelling.
[snip]
> > On the Mac, either Coda or Textmate + CSSEdit as your desktop tools. And
> > you really might as well start teaching web and JavaScript frameworks
> > right off the bat as well, plus skills like building WordPress themes
> > and integrating other content management software, since the paid market
> > for static web sites is virtually nonexistent these days.
>
> Aha. So you are overlapping in what I said - using CMSs is a pretty big
> thing and DW is not a CMS by any stretch of the imagination. As far as
> using straight text editors, that is hardly something that has to be done in
> order to have good code.
I disagree. Or, rather, the only way to get good code without manually
writing it is to convey so much information to the app generating it
that it probably would have been more convenient to just write the code.
> Oh, and Dreamweaver has its own JavaScript framework (AJAX) and works
> well with others. Spend a few minutes searching through the
> Dreamweaver Exchange:
These kinds of little pre-packaged modules are rarely useful unless you
know enough to go under the hood and modify them for specific cases.
> <http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=productHome&exc
> =3>
>
> Also, the idea that Dreamweaver is for static sites only is not
> completely off the mark, given that it is often used for that, but it
> also works with interactive sites - with its own Spry framework but
> also with JavaScript, several other Ajax frameworks, PHP, ColdFusion,
> ASP, etc.
The problem here is that actual programming languages have far more
flexibility than DW can understand. If I write a PHP function that
generates a tag cloud from the contents of a database table, there's no
way DW can somehow make the output of that function interactively
editable such that my WYSIWYG changes will propagate back and
automatically rewrite the function....
Edwin
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
[snip]
"Guide Review - Macromedia Dreamweaver 8"
"Professional Web designers and developers need look no further to find the
perfect Web authoring tool. Dreamweaver 8 offers support for modern browsers
and standards and makes it easy for you to get your site up to speed with
those technologies. In fact, the biggest drawback to Dreamweaver 8 is that
it is so complex that amateur Web designers will find it overwhelming. There
is a lot to learn and use in Dreamweaver 8 and unless you're willing to take
the time, it can be a steep learning curve. "
"Dreamweaver continues to produce good clean XHTML code without a lot of
extraneous tags and special codes. In code-view, Dreamweaver offers
color-coding and code formatting similar to the Code Sweeper in Homesite. In
design-view, Dreamweaver provides more visual cues for layout and design
elements so that CSS is easier to review and update quickly. "
"If you are an amateur Web designer who has never used Dreamweaver before,
you might want to get another software package such as FrontPage or Namo Web
Editor. But if you're looking to move into a professional space or have used
Dreamweaver in the past, you'll be thrilled with the improvements and won't
be upset with the new additions. "
http://webdesign.about.com/od/dreamweaver/gr/aaprdw8.htm
Edwin
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <C7A428F0.655FE%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-364C39.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 11:10 AM:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Your counter to it being a pro tools is, well, you do not think it is.
>> Not
>> sure what strength you think there is to that argument. Even though I
>> respect your opinions, just saying something is your opinion is not a
>> strong
>> argument.
>
> Your counter to my considered professional opinion (backed up by the
> sorry examples of supposedly professional Dreamweaver users that you
> provided) appears to be "Well, the people who sell Dreamweaver don't
> publicly admit that it's not really useful to professional web
> developers".
>
> This is not especially compelling.
[snip]
"Adobe Dreamweaver (formerly Macromedia Dreamweaver) is the preferred choice
of professional designers and developers for creating and managing
standards-based web sites and applications."
"Dreamweaver includes a powerful suite of visual layout features,
application development tools, and support for editing code. With its proven
CSS-based integration and design features, and cross-browser validation
tools, Dreamweaver allows developers and web site designers to easily build
and manage any type of web site on any type of platform."
http://www.fastvirtual.com/hosting/supported/dreamweaver.html
Snit
2/19/10 12:15 PM:
...
>>> It merely presupposes that people creating semantic HTML + CSS layouts
>>> aren't going to be using Dreamweaver. Which, if you understand how
>>> useless it is to this task, is not an unreasonable thing to assume.
>>
>> Again: this is your opinion. The evidence supports the idea that
>> Dreamweaver is made, marketed to, and priced for the pro market.
>
> Nonsense. You're trying to set this up as opinion vs. evidence, but
> you're merely using the fact that Adobe bundles Dreamweaver with
> Creative Suite as indirect evidence of Adobe's opinion on this subject.
> IOW it's not opinion vs. evidence, but my explicit and justified opinion
> vs. what _you claim_ is evidence of a certain opinion on Adobe's part.
> Nn opinion Adobe has not explicitly articulated or justified, and an
> opinion that Adobe would have a financial motive to slant in a certain
> direction as well, I might add.
It is evidence. Dreamweaver is made, marketed and priced for the pro crowd.
This is really irrefutable... a few minutes on the Adobe site is all it
takes. And it is not just Adobe who makes such claims:
<http://webdesign.about.com/od/windowshtmleditors/tp/html_editors_web_design
ers_win.htm>
-----
Windows Web Editors for Professional Web Designers
-----
First one listed: Dreamweaver.
<http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Development-Web-Software/b?ie=UTF8&node=
289972>
-----
Software › Web Development › Professional Development
-----
Dreamweaver is there, too, of course.
The challenge for you is to find a reasoned definition of a professional
tool for which Dreamweaver does not fit. I think you will be hard pressed
to do so. But even if you do, you then have to show how alternative ways of
looking at the concept are wrong.
>>>> Having a WYSIWYG tool - or one that has that as a good part of its
>>>> focus - is not a bad thing. Do you ever program in PostScript or do
>>>> you just use word processors and other similar tools?
>>>
>>> The analogy is invalid. PostScript is a language designed for
>>> describing layout, generally without semantic content. The fact that you
>>> would draw this analogy, in fact, tends to support my position that
>>> Dreamweaver fans are basically out to lunch about how the web is
>>> supposed to work.
>>
>> The comment was about code-generators, not semantic code.
>
> The comment was about automatically generating PostScript with WYSIWYG
> tools vs. automatically generating web pages with WYSIWYG tools. The
> fact that HTML represents structure while PostScript represents layout
> means the two scenarios are not remotely analogous.
They are both code generators... which as my point.
>>>>> In point of fact, I rather suspect most people who understood why
>>>>> WYSIWYG was unsuitable for modern web development abandoned DW
>>>>> years ago, meaning that the problems for Dreamweaver aren't even
>>>>> strictly technical anymore; they're also related to the character
>>>>> of its remaining user base. Not having abandoned DW years back is
>>>>> effectively a marker for cluelessness about the conceptual
>>>>> underpinnings of the modern web. I doubt the people who didn't get
>>>>> this stuff will suddenly understand it because Adobe added a couple
>>>>> of features to support it.
>>>>
>>>> What ideas do you think Dreamweaver works against?
>>>
>>> Among other things, any WYSIWYG model that has the user directly
>>> selecting and styling HTML content works against the conceptual
>>> separation between structure and layout that should be maintained in
>>> modern practice.
>>
>> In what way? You apply selectors to segments of code and can view them with
>> different style sheets - either screen and print (etc.) or different ones
>> you are testing. I do not see this as working against that separation.
>
> The model it provides actively encourages violation of the
> structure/layout separation, while simultaneously providing no
> substantial benefit to those who wish to preserve it.
How does it "encourage" this? You keep saying this but not supporting it.
> Look, there's really not much to say here. The supposedly professional
> web developers you pointed me to who you say use Dreamweaver... their
> sites and portfolios make my case much more effectively than any amount
> of theoretical argument could.
It really boils down to you have an opinion. Fair enough. I even see your
opinion as a sincere and educated one, but one in which I do not agree. I
also suspect I am significantly more familiar with Dreamweaver than are you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/19/10 12:28 PM:
> In article <C7A428F0.655FE%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-364C39.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 11:10 AM:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Your counter to it being a pro tools is, well, you do not think it is. Not
>> sure what strength you think there is to that argument. Even though I
>> respect your opinions, just saying something is your opinion is not a strong
>> argument.
>
> Your counter to my considered professional opinion (backed up by the
> sorry examples of supposedly professional Dreamweaver users that you
> provided) appears to be "Well, the people who sell Dreamweaver don't
> publicly admit that it's not really useful to professional web
> developers".
>
> This is not especially compelling.
What criteria would you need to see something as being a professional tool?
If being made, marketed and sold as a pro tool and spoken of by multiple
sources as a pro tool is not sufficient, what would you accept? Neither of
us, it seems, know the number of people in different markets who use it...
which might be another way to judge this.
> [snip]
>
>>> On the Mac, either Coda or Textmate + CSSEdit as your desktop tools. And
>>> you really might as well start teaching web and JavaScript frameworks
>>> right off the bat as well, plus skills like building WordPress themes
>>> and integrating other content management software, since the paid market
>>> for static web sites is virtually nonexistent these days.
>>
>> Aha. So you are overlapping in what I said - using CMSs is a pretty big
>> thing and DW is not a CMS by any stretch of the imagination. As far as
>> using straight text editors, that is hardly something that has to be done in
>> order to have good code.
>
> I disagree. Or, rather, the only way to get good code without manually
> writing it is to convey so much information to the app generating it
> that it probably would have been more convenient to just write the code.
When was the last time you used DW to any serious extent?
>> Oh, and Dreamweaver has its own JavaScript framework (AJAX) and works
>> well with others. Spend a few minutes searching through the
>> Dreamweaver Exchange:
>
> These kinds of little pre-packaged modules are rarely useful unless you
> know enough to go under the hood and modify them for specific cases.
Well, they are of greater use if you know how to modify them. No doubt.
This is true of all of the frameworks.
>> <http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=productHome&exc
>> =3>
>>
>> Also, the idea that Dreamweaver is for static sites only is not
>> completely off the mark, given that it is often used for that, but it
>> also works with interactive sites - with its own Spry framework but
>> also with JavaScript, several other Ajax frameworks, PHP, ColdFusion,
>> ASP, etc.
>
> The problem here is that actual programming languages have far more
> flexibility than DW can understand. If I write a PHP function that
> generates a tag cloud from the contents of a database table, there's no
> way DW can somehow make the output of that function interactively
> editable such that my WYSIWYG changes will propagate back and
> automatically rewrite the function....
What tool automatically rewrites such things?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-7AF812.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 12:15 PM:
[snip]
> The challenge for you is to find a reasoned definition of a professional
> tool for which Dreamweaver does not fit. I think you will be hard pressed
> to do so. But even if you do, you then have to show how alternative ways of
> looking at the concept are wrong.
You're merely arguing over categories and definitions. It's meaningless.
I acknowledged at the very start of this thread that DW might have a
place at the very bottom of the market, which accounts for everything
you've posted here.
> >>>> Having a WYSIWYG tool - or one that has that as a good part of its
> >>>> focus - is not a bad thing. Do you ever program in PostScript or do
> >>>> you just use word processors and other similar tools?
> >>>
> >>> The analogy is invalid. PostScript is a language designed for
> >>> describing layout, generally without semantic content. The fact that you
> >>> would draw this analogy, in fact, tends to support my position that
> >>> Dreamweaver fans are basically out to lunch about how the web is
> >>> supposed to work.
> >>
> >> The comment was about code-generators, not semantic code.
> >
> > The comment was about automatically generating PostScript with WYSIWYG
> > tools vs. automatically generating web pages with WYSIWYG tools. The
> > fact that HTML represents structure while PostScript represents layout
> > means the two scenarios are not remotely analogous.
>
> They are both code generators... which as my point.
Then you have no point.
> >> In what way? You apply selectors to segments of code and can view
> >> them with different style sheets - either screen and print (etc.)
> >> or different ones you are testing. I do not see this as working
> >> against that separation.
> >
> > The model it provides actively encourages violation of the
> > structure/layout separation, while simultaneously providing no
> > substantial benefit to those who wish to preserve it.
>
> How does it "encourage" this? You keep saying this but not
> supporting it.
While it might support, say, attaching classes to text blocks, it also
supports just selecting some arbitrary text and then applying styles to
it. This is the way it will be used by most new users. In fact, I
suspect this is the way it will be used by most of its users in general,
because people who aren't interested in that capability will derive
virtually no benefit from using DW, and so mostly won't use it.
I've actually explained this in various ways several times now.
> > Look, there's really not much to say here. The supposedly professional
> > web developers you pointed me to who you say use Dreamweaver... their
> > sites and portfolios make my case much more effectively than any amount
> > of theoretical argument could.
>
> It really boils down to you have an opinion. Fair enough. I even see your
> opinion as a sincere and educated one, but one in which I do not agree. I
> also suspect I am significantly more familiar with Dreamweaver than are you.
But you appear to be significant less familiar with modern web
development practices.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-4A55E0.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 12:28 PM:
[snip]
> >> Also, the idea that Dreamweaver is for static sites only is not
> >> completely off the mark, given that it is often used for that, but it
> >> also works with interactive sites - with its own Spry framework but
> >> also with JavaScript, several other Ajax frameworks, PHP, ColdFusion,
> >> ASP, etc.
> >
> > The problem here is that actual programming languages have far more
> > flexibility than DW can understand. If I write a PHP function that
> > generates a tag cloud from the contents of a database table, there's no
> > way DW can somehow make the output of that function interactively
> > editable such that my WYSIWYG changes will propagate back and
> > automatically rewrite the function....
>
> What tool automatically rewrites such things?
No tool does. This is why serious professional web developers don't
bother with WYSIWYG tools; once a web page is no longer just a page, but
a view class in a web application containing programmatically generated
HTML mixed with static HTML (possibly reused between views), flow
control, etc. styled by external stylesheet rules, WYSIWYG tools become
nearly useless.
Snit
2/19/10 7:10 PM:
> In article <C7A47016.65B7A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-7AF812.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 12:15 PM:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The challenge for you is to find a reasoned definition of a professional
>> tool for which Dreamweaver does not fit. I think you will be hard pressed
>> to do so. But even if you do, you then have to show how alternative ways of
>> looking at the concept are wrong.
>
> You're merely arguing over categories and definitions. It's meaningless.
> I acknowledged at the very start of this thread that DW might have a
> place at the very bottom of the market, which accounts for everything
> you've posted here.
What do you mean by "bottom of the market"? We may be pretty much in
agreement and just debating terms.
>>>>>> Having a WYSIWYG tool - or one that has that as a good part of its
>>>>>> focus - is not a bad thing. Do you ever program in PostScript or do
>>>>>> you just use word processors and other similar tools?
>>>>>
>>>>> The analogy is invalid. PostScript is a language designed for
>>>>> describing layout, generally without semantic content. The fact that you
>>>>> would draw this analogy, in fact, tends to support my position that
>>>>> Dreamweaver fans are basically out to lunch about how the web is
>>>>> supposed to work.
>>>>
>>>> The comment was about code-generators, not semantic code.
>>>
>>> The comment was about automatically generating PostScript with WYSIWYG
>>> tools vs. automatically generating web pages with WYSIWYG tools. The
>>> fact that HTML represents structure while PostScript represents layout
>>> means the two scenarios are not remotely analogous.
>>
>> They are both code generators... which as my point.
>
> Then you have no point.
I made the point that people use code generators in many areas... including
in many professional settings. Heck, there are professional CASE code
generators. I could have used those as an example, too.
>>>> In what way? You apply selectors to segments of code and can view
>>>> them with different style sheets - either screen and print (etc.)
>>>> or different ones you are testing. I do not see this as working
>>>> against that separation.
>>>
>>> The model it provides actively encourages violation of the
>>> structure/layout separation, while simultaneously providing no
>>> substantial benefit to those who wish to preserve it.
>>
>> How does it "encourage" this? You keep saying this but not
>> supporting it.
>
> While it might support, say, attaching classes to text blocks, it also
> supports just selecting some arbitrary text and then applying styles to
> it.
Well, so does a text editor.
> This is the way it will be used by most new users. In fact, I
> suspect this is the way it will be used by most of its users in general,
> because people who aren't interested in that capability will derive
> virtually no benefit from using DW, and so mostly won't use it.
>
> I've actually explained this in various ways several times now.
You keep saying it but not really supporting it. People can use BBEdit to
do the same thing. Just not as quickly. :)
>>> Look, there's really not much to say here. The supposedly professional
>>> web developers you pointed me to who you say use Dreamweaver... their
>>> sites and portfolios make my case much more effectively than any amount
>>> of theoretical argument could.
>>
>> It really boils down to you have an opinion. Fair enough. I even see your
>> opinion as a sincere and educated one, but one in which I do not agree. I
>> also suspect I am significantly more familiar with Dreamweaver than are you.
>
> But you appear to be significant less familiar with modern web
> development practices.
I do not doubt that. While I have used CMSs, and have done so since the
1990s, I do not know a great deal about them. I also am not a PHP or
JavaScript (etc.) coder of any real worth. There are many skills a full
time web developer should have when I have little or, effectively, no skill
with. Do not debate that at all.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/19/10 7:13 PM:
> In article <C7A470EB.65B7C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-4A55E0.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 12:28 PM:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Also, the idea that Dreamweaver is for static sites only is not
>>>> completely off the mark, given that it is often used for that, but it
>>>> also works with interactive sites - with its own Spry framework but
>>>> also with JavaScript, several other Ajax frameworks, PHP, ColdFusion,
>>>> ASP, etc.
>>>
>>> The problem here is that actual programming languages have far more
>>> flexibility than DW can understand. If I write a PHP function that
>>> generates a tag cloud from the contents of a database table, there's no
>>> way DW can somehow make the output of that function interactively
>>> editable such that my WYSIWYG changes will propagate back and
>>> automatically rewrite the function....
>>
>> What tool automatically rewrites such things?
>
> No tool does.
So your complaint about DW is that it fails to do what no other tool does.
That is not really making sense.
> This is why serious professional web developers don't bother with WYSIWYG
> tools; once a web page is no longer just a page, but a view class in a web
> application containing programmatically generated HTML mixed with static HTML
> (possibly reused between views), flow control, etc. styled by external
> stylesheet rules, WYSIWYG tools become nearly useless.
I guarantee you that just about every web developer looks at his code in a
graphical environment. Having one built into the development tool does not
take away other aspects of design - and can benefit them. Not saying it is
the right tool for every job (I have been clear it is not) but I do not get
why you think just because someone is using DW they would not be able to
work with other tools and technologies, too.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-2F296F.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 7:10 PM:
>
> > In article <C7A47016.65B7A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU stated in post znu-7AF812.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> >> 2/19/10 12:15 PM:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> The challenge for you is to find a reasoned definition of a professional
> >> tool for which Dreamweaver does not fit. I think you will be hard pressed
> >> to do so. But even if you do, you then have to show how alternative ways
> >> of
> >> looking at the concept are wrong.
> >
> > You're merely arguing over categories and definitions. It's meaningless.
> > I acknowledged at the very start of this thread that DW might have a
> > place at the very bottom of the market, which accounts for everything
> > you've posted here.
>
> What do you mean by "bottom of the market"? We may be pretty much in
> agreement and just debating terms.
People of fairly low skill levels making web sites for clients who care
more about price than quality.
> >>>>>> Having a WYSIWYG tool - or one that has that as a good part of its
> >>>>>> focus - is not a bad thing. Do you ever program in PostScript or do
> >>>>>> you just use word processors and other similar tools?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The analogy is invalid. PostScript is a language designed for
> >>>>> describing layout, generally without semantic content. The fact that
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> would draw this analogy, in fact, tends to support my position that
> >>>>> Dreamweaver fans are basically out to lunch about how the web is
> >>>>> supposed to work.
> >>>>
> >>>> The comment was about code-generators, not semantic code.
> >>>
> >>> The comment was about automatically generating PostScript with WYSIWYG
> >>> tools vs. automatically generating web pages with WYSIWYG tools. The
> >>> fact that HTML represents structure while PostScript represents layout
> >>> means the two scenarios are not remotely analogous.
> >>
> >> They are both code generators... which as my point.
> >
> > Then you have no point.
>
> I made the point that people use code generators in many areas... including
> in many professional settings. Heck, there are professional CASE code
> generators. I could have used those as an example, too.
OK, but that point is irrelevant, because we weren't having a general
discussion about code generation.
[snip]
> > This is the way it will be used by most new users. In fact, I
> > suspect this is the way it will be used by most of its users in general,
> > because people who aren't interested in that capability will derive
> > virtually no benefit from using DW, and so mostly won't use it.
> >
> > I've actually explained this in various ways several times now.
>
> You keep saying it but not really supporting it. People can use BBEdit to
> do the same thing. Just not as quickly. :)
But this is precisely the point. BBEdit makes it easier to do things the
right way than the wrong way. Dreamweaver makes it easier to do things
the wrong way than the right way.
[snip]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-14294C.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 7:13 PM:
>
> > In article <C7A470EB.65B7C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU stated in post znu-4A55E0.1...@Port80.Individual.NET
> >> on 2/19/10 12:28 PM:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>>> Also, the idea that Dreamweaver is for static sites only is not
> >>>> completely off the mark, given that it is often used for that,
> >>>> but it also works with interactive sites - with its own Spry
> >>>> framework but also with JavaScript, several other Ajax
> >>>> frameworks, PHP, ColdFusion, ASP, etc.
> >>>
> >>> The problem here is that actual programming languages have far
> >>> more flexibility than DW can understand. If I write a PHP
> >>> function that generates a tag cloud from the contents of a
> >>> database table, there's no way DW can somehow make the output of
> >>> that function interactively editable such that my WYSIWYG changes
> >>> will propagate back and automatically rewrite the function....
> >>
> >> What tool automatically rewrites such things?
> >
> > No tool does.
>
> So your complaint about DW is that it fails to do what no other tool
> does. That is not really making sense.
No, my complaint about DW is that it tries to provide a WYSIWYG
interface for a task for which that is inherently the wrong approach.
> > This is why serious professional web developers don't bother with
> > WYSIWYG tools; once a web page is no longer just a page, but a view
> > class in a web application containing programmatically generated
> > HTML mixed with static HTML (possibly reused between views), flow
> > control, etc. styled by external stylesheet rules, WYSIWYG tools
> > become nearly useless.
>
> I guarantee you that just about every web developer looks at his code
> in a graphical environment. Having one built into the development
> tool does not take away other aspects of design - and can benefit
> them.
Obviously pretty much every web developer views their pages while
creating them. This is not really the same thing as WYSIWYG editing.
> Not saying it is the right tool for every job (I have been
> clear it is not) but I do not get why you think just because someone
> is using DW they would not be able to work with other tools and
> technologies, too.
Because once one understands modern best-practices web development, one
realizes that Dreamweaver basically just gets in the way. Therefore, if
someone is still using Dreamweaver, is stands to reason they don't
actually understand modern best-practices web development.
Snit
2/19/10 7:50 PM:
...
>>>>> The problem here is that actual programming languages have far
>>>>> more flexibility than DW can understand. If I write a PHP
>>>>> function that generates a tag cloud from the contents of a
>>>>> database table, there's no way DW can somehow make the output of
>>>>> that function interactively editable such that my WYSIWYG changes
>>>>> will propagate back and automatically rewrite the function....
>>>>
>>>> What tool automatically rewrites such things?
>>>
>>> No tool does.
>>
>> So your complaint about DW is that it fails to do what no other tool
>> does. That is not really making sense.
>
> No, my complaint about DW is that it tries to provide a WYSIWYG
> interface for a task for which that is inherently the wrong approach.
I have no problem with you thinking that... nor with you deciding to not use
it yourself. But the original topic is if DW, a tool made for, marketed to,
priced for, and connected to other pro-tools is a pro tool.
Your dislike of it and lack of desire to use it does not change that. Your
understanding that there are CMSs and other tools where Dreamweaver is
generally not the right tool for the job does not change that.
>>> This is why serious professional web developers don't bother with
>>> WYSIWYG tools; once a web page is no longer just a page, but a view
>>> class in a web application containing programmatically generated
>>> HTML mixed with static HTML (possibly reused between views), flow
>>> control, etc. styled by external stylesheet rules, WYSIWYG tools
>>> become nearly useless.
>>
>> I guarantee you that just about every web developer looks at his code
>> in a graphical environment. Having one built into the development
>> tool does not take away other aspects of design - and can benefit
>> them.
>
> Obviously pretty much every web developer views their pages while
> creating them.
Right. But you are against a tool that has this built in... so previewing
the code in a separate WebKit viewer is fine, but not an integrated one...
and one that also gives you other capabilities. It is an odd claim. Now I
can see if you felt this added unneeded bloat, but that has not been your
concern.
> This is not really the same thing as WYSIWYG editing.
And DW does much more than just WYSIWYG editing.
>> Not saying it is the right tool for every job (I have been
>> clear it is not) but I do not get why you think just because someone
>> is using DW they would not be able to work with other tools and
>> technologies, too.
>
> Because once one understands modern best-practices web development, one
> realizes that Dreamweaver basically just gets in the way. Therefore, if
> someone is still using Dreamweaver, is stands to reason they don't
> actually understand modern best-practices web development.
I understand this is your opinion.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/19/10 7:46 PM:
...
>>> You're merely arguing over categories and definitions. It's meaningless.
>>> I acknowledged at the very start of this thread that DW might have a
>>> place at the very bottom of the market, which accounts for everything
>>> you've posted here.
>>
>> What do you mean by "bottom of the market"? We may be pretty much in
>> agreement and just debating terms.
>
> People of fairly low skill levels making web sites for clients who care
> more about price than quality.
When you say "fairly low skills", are you implying they have low skills with
the tools they use or that they lack skills in other tools so they are
"stuck" with Dreamweaver?
...
>>>> They are both code generators... which as my point.
>>>
>>> Then you have no point.
>>
>> I made the point that people use code generators in many areas... including
>> in many professional settings. Heck, there are professional CASE code
>> generators. I could have used those as an example, too.
>
> OK, but that point is irrelevant, because we weren't having a general
> discussion about code generation.
I am noting that code generators are used in many other areas of
professional computer work. I know some programmers who consider then toys
for beginners... and others who see them as the next step toward making
programming more advanced. I suspect we are seeing two sides of a similar
coin here.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> This is the way it will be used by most new users. In fact, I
>>> suspect this is the way it will be used by most of its users in general,
>>> because people who aren't interested in that capability will derive
>>> virtually no benefit from using DW, and so mostly won't use it.
>>>
>>> I've actually explained this in various ways several times now.
>>
>> You keep saying it but not really supporting it. People can use BBEdit to
>> do the same thing. Just not as quickly. :)
>
> But this is precisely the point. BBEdit makes it easier to do things the
> right way than the wrong way. Dreamweaver makes it easier to do things
> the wrong way than the right way.
You can just as easily add a tag to arbitrary text in BBEdit as you can add
it to a semantically meaningful one. What in BBEdit prevents or discourages
this?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-A618F4.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 7:46 PM:
>
> ...
> >>> You're merely arguing over categories and definitions. It's meaningless.
> >>> I acknowledged at the very start of this thread that DW might have a
> >>> place at the very bottom of the market, which accounts for everything
> >>> you've posted here.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "bottom of the market"? We may be pretty much in
> >> agreement and just debating terms.
> >
> > People of fairly low skill levels making web sites for clients who care
> > more about price than quality.
>
> When you say "fairly low skills", are you implying they have low skills with
> the tools they use or that they lack skills in other tools so they are
> "stuck" with Dreamweaver?
I am speaking about skill in web development itself, not skill with
specific narrow tools; actually understanding HTML, CSS, JavaScript etc.
both at the syntactical and conceptual levels.
> >>>> They are both code generators... which as my point.
> >>>
> >>> Then you have no point.
> >>
> >> I made the point that people use code generators in many areas... including
> >> in many professional settings. Heck, there are professional CASE code
> >> generators. I could have used those as an example, too.
> >
> > OK, but that point is irrelevant, because we weren't having a general
> > discussion about code generation.
>
> I am noting that code generators are used in many other areas of
> professional computer work. I know some programmers who consider then toys
> for beginners... and others who see them as the next step toward making
> programming more advanced. I suspect we are seeing two sides of a similar
> coin here.
It's pointless to discuss code generation in the abstract. It can be
either a major time saver or a way of very quickly generating huge
future maintenance hassles; it all depends on context.
> >>> This is the way it will be used by most new users. In fact, I
> >>> suspect this is the way it will be used by most of its users in general,
> >>> because people who aren't interested in that capability will derive
> >>> virtually no benefit from using DW, and so mostly won't use it.
> >>>
> >>> I've actually explained this in various ways several times now.
> >>
> >> You keep saying it but not really supporting it. People can use BBEdit to
> >> do the same thing. Just not as quickly. :)
> >
> > But this is precisely the point. BBEdit makes it easier to do things the
> > right way than the wrong way. Dreamweaver makes it easier to do things
> > the wrong way than the right way.
>
> You can just as easily add a tag to arbitrary text in BBEdit as you can add
> it to a semantically meaningful one. What in BBEdit prevents or discourages
> this?
The fact that it will create visible clutter. You're going to produce
better structured and cleaner code if you're looking at it.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-4FF0ED.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 7:50 PM:
[snip]
> >> I guarantee you that just about every web developer looks at his code
> >> in a graphical environment. Having one built into the development
> >> tool does not take away other aspects of design - and can benefit
> >> them.
> >
> > Obviously pretty much every web developer views their pages while
> > creating them.
>
> Right. But you are against a tool that has this built in... so previewing
> the code in a separate WebKit viewer is fine, but not an integrated one...
No. An integrated WebKit view does not turn, say, CSSEdit into a WYSIWYG
tool.
[snip]
Snit
2/19/10 8:19 PM:
> In article <C7A49D4A.65C04%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-4FF0ED.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 7:50 PM:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> I guarantee you that just about every web developer looks at his code
>>>> in a graphical environment. Having one built into the development
>>>> tool does not take away other aspects of design - and can benefit
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Obviously pretty much every web developer views their pages while
>>> creating them.
>>
>> Right. But you are against a tool that has this built in... so previewing
>> the code in a separate WebKit viewer is fine, but not an integrated one...
>
> No. An integrated WebKit view does not turn, say, CSSEdit into a WYSIWYG
> tool.
Well, if you had it doing so in real time it would be one... though a fairly
primitive one. Direct manipulation would be better.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> In article <C7A49E15.65C06%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-A618F4.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 7:46 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> You're merely arguing over categories and definitions. It's meaningless.
>>>>> I acknowledged at the very start of this thread that DW might have a
>>>>> place at the very bottom of the market, which accounts for everything
>>>>> you've posted here.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "bottom of the market"? We may be pretty much in
>>>> agreement and just debating terms.
>>>
>>> People of fairly low skill levels making web sites for clients who care
>>> more about price than quality.
>>
>> When you say "fairly low skills", are you implying they have low skills with
>> the tools they use or that they lack skills in other tools so they are
>> "stuck" with Dreamweaver?
>
> I am speaking about skill in web development itself, not skill with
> specific narrow tools; actually understanding HTML, CSS, JavaScript etc.
> both at the syntactical and conceptual levels.
And do you have any evidence that Dreamweaver users, as a group, understand
this less well than other web developers?
Also curious if you have any experience with Dreamweaver... and if so, what
version and how much (around, I am not looking for a tracking of hours!). I
suspect you have very little experience with it or, if you do, with older
versions. For example, the last few versions of Dreamweaver have come a
long way in CSS support... and JavaScript frameworks.
>>>>>> They are both code generators... which as my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you have no point.
>>>>
>>>> I made the point that people use code generators in many areas... including
>>>> in many professional settings. Heck, there are professional CASE code
>>>> generators. I could have used those as an example, too.
>>>
>>> OK, but that point is irrelevant, because we weren't having a general
>>> discussion about code generation.
>>
>> I am noting that code generators are used in many other areas of
>> professional computer work. I know some programmers who consider then toys
>> for beginners... and others who see them as the next step toward making
>> programming more advanced. I suspect we are seeing two sides of a similar
>> coin here.
>
> It's pointless to discuss code generation in the abstract. It can be
> either a major time saver or a way of very quickly generating huge
> future maintenance hassles; it all depends on context.
What other context do you think it is a big problem for?
>>>>> This is the way it will be used by most new users. In fact, I
>>>>> suspect this is the way it will be used by most of its users in general,
>>>>> because people who aren't interested in that capability will derive
>>>>> virtually no benefit from using DW, and so mostly won't use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've actually explained this in various ways several times now.
>>>>
>>>> You keep saying it but not really supporting it. People can use BBEdit to
>>>> do the same thing. Just not as quickly. :)
>>>
>>> But this is precisely the point. BBEdit makes it easier to do things the
>>> right way than the wrong way. Dreamweaver makes it easier to do things
>>> the wrong way than the right way.
>>
>> You can just as easily add a tag to arbitrary text in BBEdit as you can add
>> it to a semantically meaningful one. What in BBEdit prevents or discourages
>> this?
>
> The fact that it will create visible clutter. You're going to produce
> better structured and cleaner code if you're looking at it.
One: Dreamweaver does nothing to prevent you from looking at the code.
Two: It makes sense that if you can see what your code does in almost real
time you will make *better* code, not worse. Of course, the code can do
different things on different devices... and Dreamweaver can show you that
as well. One thing it does not do is show them to you at the same time... I
have put in a request for such a feature - it would be a benefit. As it is
now, you can look at split code... which shows there is certainly a focus on
code.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-0D5D38.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 8:19 PM:
>
> > In article <C7A49D4A.65C04%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU stated in post znu-4FF0ED.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> >> 2/19/10 7:50 PM:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>>> I guarantee you that just about every web developer looks at his code
> >>>> in a graphical environment. Having one built into the development
> >>>> tool does not take away other aspects of design - and can benefit
> >>>> them.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously pretty much every web developer views their pages while
> >>> creating them.
> >>
> >> Right. But you are against a tool that has this built in... so previewing
> >> the code in a separate WebKit viewer is fine, but not an integrated one...
> >
> > No. An integrated WebKit view does not turn, say, CSSEdit into a WYSIWYG
> > tool.
>
> Well, if you had it doing so in real time it would be one... though a fairly
> primitive one.
IMO modern usage of the term 'WYSIWYG' strongly implies direct
manipulation as well.
> Direct manipulation would be better.
The problem with direct manipulation in this context is that if you
select some element, the app has no way of knowing what you want to
actually target. Just that one single element? All elements of that
type? All elements of that type with a specifically assigned class name?
All elements of that type that are the first children of elements of
some other specific type?
You can't infer CSS selectors from GUI selection....
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The fact that they use Dreamweaver.
I know this sounds circular, but it really isn't, because it's anchored
in outside context, namely the fact that the unique functionality
offered by Dreamweaver is essentially useless for modern best-practices
web development. People who use Dreamweaver presumably use it for this
unique functionality. Therefore they are likely not to understand (or to
be willfully opposed to practicing) modern best-practices web
development.
> Also curious if you have any experience with Dreamweaver... and if so, what
> version and how much (around, I am not looking for a tracking of hours!). I
> suspect you have very little experience with it or, if you do, with older
> versions. For example, the last few versions of Dreamweaver have come a
> long way in CSS support... and JavaScript frameworks.
I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
merely encouraging them.
[snip]
> > The fact that it will create visible clutter. You're going to
> > produce better structured and cleaner code if you're looking at it.
>
> One: Dreamweaver does nothing to prevent you from looking at the
> code.
Yes, but few people use it primarily as a text editor, and tweaking
things on the graphical end while watching the code to make sure it
doesn't suck sounds a lot more annoying that just writing code.
> Two: It makes sense that if you can see what your code does in almost
> real time you will make *better* code, not worse.
Sorry, this doesn't make sense. Or perhaps it does for CSS editing
(though see the problems with selectors I bring up in the other post),
but not for HTML editing. Since HTML doesn't (or shouldn't) define
layout, there is nothing to see. The code is correct if it properly
specifies the structure of the document.
> Of course, the code can do different things on different devices...
> and Dreamweaver can show you that as well. One thing it does not do
> is show them to you at the same time... I have put in a request for
> such a feature - it would be a benefit. As it is now, you can look
> at split code... which shows there is certainly a focus on code.
--
Snit
2/19/10 9:44 PM:
> In article <C7A4B496.65C1B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-0D5D38.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 8:19 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C7A49D4A.65C04%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ZnU stated in post znu-4FF0ED.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>>>> 2/19/10 7:50 PM:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>> I guarantee you that just about every web developer looks at his code
>>>>>> in a graphical environment. Having one built into the development
>>>>>> tool does not take away other aspects of design - and can benefit
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously pretty much every web developer views their pages while
>>>>> creating them.
>>>>
>>>> Right. But you are against a tool that has this built in... so previewing
>>>> the code in a separate WebKit viewer is fine, but not an integrated one...
>>>
>>> No. An integrated WebKit view does not turn, say, CSSEdit into a WYSIWYG
>>> tool.
>>
>> Well, if you had it doing so in real time it would be one... though a fairly
>> primitive one.
>
> IMO modern usage of the term 'WYSIWYG' strongly implies direct
> manipulation as well.
Again, we can debate terms... but I think we are in agreement that direct
manipulation is pretty much the norm for WYSIWYG editors. Of course, based
on that criteria, Dreamweaver is not really a full WYSIWYG tool... to get
the full (or, really more full) WYSIWYG experience you have to turn off
direct manipulation and edit just the code.
>> Direct manipulation would be better.
>
> The problem with direct manipulation in this context is that if you
> select some element, the app has no way of knowing what you want to
> actually target. Just that one single element? All elements of that
> type? All elements of that type with a specifically assigned class name?
> All elements of that type that are the first children of elements of
> some other specific type?
>
> You can't infer CSS selectors from GUI selection....
But as a designer you can decide. You have to make the same decisions for
BBEdit.
For what it is worth, I did a quick search of "professional web design" and
looked at their sites to see if they mentioned what tools / proficiencies
they have. Of the ones who mentioned such, 4 out 5 spoke highly about
Dreamweaver and the fact their people knew it. One spoke poorly of it,
using some of your arguments.
The four which showed supportive comments:
<http://www.dburnsdesign.com>
<http://www.gatesix.com>
<http://www.mountevansdesigns.com>
<http://www.web-eze.com>
The one which was clearly against its use:
<http://www.leveltendesign.com>
Not that this was a scientific examination, but it seems that while there
are others who share your view (which is not surprising), for the most part
the industry still accepts and embraces Dreamweaver.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/19/10 10:01 PM:
...
>>> I am speaking about skill in web development itself, not skill with
>>> specific narrow tools; actually understanding HTML, CSS, JavaScript etc.
>>> both at the syntactical and conceptual levels.
>>
>> And do you have any evidence that Dreamweaver users, as a group, understand
>> this less well than other web developers?
>
> The fact that they use Dreamweaver.
>
> I know this sounds circular, but it really isn't, because it's anchored
> in outside context, namely the fact that the unique functionality
> offered by Dreamweaver is essentially useless for modern best-practices
> web development. People who use Dreamweaver presumably use it for this
> unique functionality. Therefore they are likely not to understand (or to
> be willfully opposed to practicing) modern best-practices web
> development.
It sounds circular because it is. You have *no* support for the idea that
Dreamweaver users understand web techniques less well than other developers.
The one are of support I can see is that it is likely, given the shallower
learning curve to at least do the basics with Dreamweaver... so while the
pros are not hurt, there are more non-pros who can use Dreamweaver than who
can code a site from BBEdit and the like.
>> Also curious if you have any experience with Dreamweaver... and if so, what
>> version and how much (around, I am not looking for a tracking of hours!). I
>> suspect you have very little experience with it or, if you do, with older
>> versions. For example, the last few versions of Dreamweaver have come a
>> long way in CSS support... and JavaScript frameworks.
>
> I haven't used Dreamweaver much since I abandoned table-based layouts
> about eight years ago, but I have checked in on it over the years. I
> have seen nothing that would cause me to change the view expressed
> above. At best Dreamweaver has gone from requiring bad practices to
> merely encouraging them.
Your last real experience with it was close to a decade ago and many
versions ago.
That is not really a good sign of you having much understanding of it.
> [snip]
>
>>> The fact that it will create visible clutter. You're going to
>>> produce better structured and cleaner code if you're looking at it.
>>
>> One: Dreamweaver does nothing to prevent you from looking at the
>> code.
>
> Yes, but few people use it primarily as a text editor, and tweaking
> things on the graphical end while watching the code to make sure it
> doesn't suck sounds a lot more annoying that just writing code.
I, and many, jump back and forth depending on what works for us better.
Heck, the newest version has a split code view to allow for easier working
in the text mode.
>> Two: It makes sense that if you can see what your code does in almost
>> real time you will make *better* code, not worse.
>
> Sorry, this doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. Faster and better feedback is a benefit.
> Or perhaps it does for CSS editing (though see the problems with selectors I
> bring up in the other post), but not for HTML editing. Since HTML doesn't (or
> shouldn't) define layout, there is nothing to see.
Dreamweaver works with both CSS and HTML, and there sure is plenty to see
that is tied to HTML. To say otherwise is a little silly.
> The code is correct if it properly specifies the structure of the document.
And nothing in Dreamwweaver prevents that... in fact there are a fairly
large number of pre-defined CSS templates to help speed this up.
>> Of course, the code can do different things on different devices...
>> and Dreamweaver can show you that as well. One thing it does not do
>> is show them to you at the same time... I have put in a request for
>> such a feature - it would be a benefit. As it is now, you can look
>> at split code... which shows there is certainly a focus on code.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-0C59E8.2...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 9:44 PM:
[snip]
> For what it is worth, I did a quick search of "professional web design" and
> looked at their sites to see if they mentioned what tools / proficiencies
> they have. Of the ones who mentioned such, 4 out 5 spoke highly about
> Dreamweaver and the fact their people knew it. One spoke poorly of it,
> using some of your arguments.
>
> The four which showed supportive comments:
>
> <http://www.dburnsdesign.com>
> <http://www.gatesix.com>
> <http://www.mountevansdesigns.com>
> <http://www.web-eze.com>
>
> The one which was clearly against its use:
>
> <http://www.leveltendesign.com>
>
> Not that this was a scientific examination, but it seems that while there
> are others who share your view (which is not surprising), for the most part
> the industry still accepts and embraces Dreamweaver.
Your selection mechanism is likely to produce a biased sample, as the
people who really understand modern web development practices are more
likely to focus on technologies than tools. For instance, I've been
reading Zeldman's blog for years, and I couldn't tell you what text
editor he uses. It just doesn't really matter, because his experience of
creating a web page is the experience of writing the code. In contrast,
the experience of Dreamweaver user creating a web page is the experience
of the DW interface.
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-91AB71.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 10:01 PM:
>
> ...
> >>> I am speaking about skill in web development itself, not skill with
> >>> specific narrow tools; actually understanding HTML, CSS, JavaScript etc.
> >>> both at the syntactical and conceptual levels.
> >>
> >> And do you have any evidence that Dreamweaver users, as a group,
> >> understand
> >> this less well than other web developers?
> >
> > The fact that they use Dreamweaver.
> >
> > I know this sounds circular, but it really isn't, because it's anchored
> > in outside context, namely the fact that the unique functionality
> > offered by Dreamweaver is essentially useless for modern best-practices
> > web development. People who use Dreamweaver presumably use it for this
> > unique functionality. Therefore they are likely not to understand (or to
> > be willfully opposed to practicing) modern best-practices web
> > development.
>
> It sounds circular because it is. You have *no* support for the idea that
> Dreamweaver users understand web techniques less well than other developers.
You're not actually engaging with my argument.
[snip]
> >> Two: It makes sense that if you can see what your code does in
> >> almost real time you will make *better* code, not worse.
> >
> > Sorry, this doesn't make sense.
>
> Sure it does. Faster and better feedback is a benefit.
>
> > Or perhaps it does for CSS editing (though see the problems with
> > selectors I bring up in the other post), but not for HTML editing.
> > Since HTML doesn't (or shouldn't) define layout, there is nothing
> > to see.
>
> Dreamweaver works with both CSS and HTML, and there sure is plenty to
> see that is tied to HTML. To say otherwise is a little silly.
But you don't write better HTML because you're looking at a rendered
result, since HTML does not define layout.
> > The code is correct if it properly specifies the structure of the
> > document.
>
> And nothing in Dreamwweaver prevents that... in fact there are a
> fairly large number of pre-defined CSS templates to help speed this
> up.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
Snit
2/19/10 10:30 PM:
> In article <C7A4BDD4.65C29%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU stated in post znu-91AB71.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
>> 2/19/10 10:01 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> I am speaking about skill in web development itself, not skill with
>>>>> specific narrow tools; actually understanding HTML, CSS, JavaScript etc.
>>>>> both at the syntactical and conceptual levels.
>>>>
>>>> And do you have any evidence that Dreamweaver users, as a group,
>>>> understand
>>>> this less well than other web developers?
>>>
>>> The fact that they use Dreamweaver.
>>>
>>> I know this sounds circular, but it really isn't, because it's anchored
>>> in outside context, namely the fact that the unique functionality
>>> offered by Dreamweaver is essentially useless for modern best-practices
>>> web development. People who use Dreamweaver presumably use it for this
>>> unique functionality. Therefore they are likely not to understand (or to
>>> be willfully opposed to practicing) modern best-practices web
>>> development.
>>
>> It sounds circular because it is. You have *no* support for the idea that
>> Dreamweaver users understand web techniques less well than other developers.
>
> You're not actually engaging with my argument.
Your argument is a pretty simple one: you think Dreamweaver users will
somehow be dissuaded from following best practices. But in each of the
cases you give, you can make the same mistakes in BBEdit (poor use of CSS,
say).
>>>> Two: It makes sense that if you can see what your code does in
>>>> almost real time you will make *better* code, not worse.
>>>
>>> Sorry, this doesn't make sense.
>>
>> Sure it does. Faster and better feedback is a benefit.
>>
>>> Or perhaps it does for CSS editing (though see the problems with
>>> selectors I bring up in the other post), but not for HTML editing.
>>> Since HTML doesn't (or shouldn't) define layout, there is nothing
>>> to see.
>>
>> Dreamweaver works with both CSS and HTML, and there sure is plenty to
>> see that is tied to HTML. To say otherwise is a little silly.
>
> But you don't write better HTML because you're looking at a rendered
> result, since HTML does not define layout.
HTML and CSS together (along with other technologies) define how a page will
look. And if you can see what is in the defined layout sections you can
more easily modify them if needed.
>>> The code is correct if it properly specifies the structure of the
>>> document.
>>
>> And nothing in Dreamwweaver prevents that... in fact there are a
>> fairly large number of pre-defined CSS templates to help speed this
>> up.
>
> I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
It is noting you are incorrect to insinuate that Dreamweaver is somehow
working against making correct code.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/19/10 10:27 PM:
As I noted, if they talked about tools or proficiencies... in the later case
they very much focused on proficiencies to the exclusion of any given tool.
In the case of the others, they often discussed both.
The only one I left out of my list above was 1&1, who apparently think it is
professional web design to have their "pros" design your on-line template
based site for you. Yeah, I called them to see if they did more - they
apparently do not. So I guess we can count that as another who does not use
Dreamweaver... :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
That's one of my arguments, but not the one given above.
> But in each of the cases you give, you can make the same mistakes in
> BBEdit (poor use of CSS, say).
Hand-coding encourages DRY because you have to type a lot more to RY.
[snip]
Snit
2/19/10 10:43 PM:
That and since you do not see the value in many of the features of
Dreamweaver then others likely do not either.
>> But in each of the cases you give, you can make the same mistakes in
>> BBEdit (poor use of CSS, say).
>
> Hand-coding encourages DRY because you have to type a lot more to RY.
So Dreamweaver makes it easier to get work done, therefore you are likely to
do more work than you should (including work you should not).
Not a very strong argument.
Still comes down to you having an opinion - one you have based on little
knowledge of Dreamweaver - and very little if anything to counter the
evidence that shows otherwise: the fact the product is made for, marketed
to, and priced for pros, the fact that at least apparently many pro shops
value the skill set of being able to use it well (in addition to other
skills), etc.
In other words, you have your opinion vs. the facts we have been able to
find, and they are at odds. This does mean I or anyone is saying you or
others should go out and learn it right now, nor is it saying that a pro
would need to use only Dreamweaver or even use it on every project. But
clearly Dreamweaver is an important tool for the pro web design industry...
the more research I do into this the more clear that becomes.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Dreamweaver makes it easier to do things the wrong way without making it
easier to do things the right way. In fact, it's inferior to many other
tools when doing things the right way.
> Not a very strong argument.
>
> Still comes down to you having an opinion - one you have based on little
> knowledge of Dreamweaver - and very little if anything to counter the
> evidence that shows otherwise: the fact the product is made for, marketed
> to, and priced for pros, the fact that at least apparently many pro shops
> value the skill set of being able to use it well (in addition to other
> skills), etc.
>
> In other words, you have your opinion vs. the facts we have been able to
> find, and they are at odds.
As I have already explained, this is not an accurate characterization.
Something like whether Dreamweaver is a suitable tool for modern
best-practices web development is not really a fact that can be
objectively established. The facts you are referring to are merely
indirect indications of opinions other might hold.
Snit
2/19/10 11:17 PM:
...
>> That and since you do not see the value in many of the features of
>> Dreamweaver then others likely do not either.
>>
>>>> But in each of the cases you give, you can make the same mistakes in
>>>> BBEdit (poor use of CSS, say).
>>>
>>> Hand-coding encourages DRY because you have to type a lot more to RY.
>>
>> So Dreamweaver makes it easier to get work done, therefore you are likely to
>> do more work than you should (including work you should not).
>
> Dreamweaver makes it easier to do things the wrong way without making it
> easier to do things the right way. In fact, it's inferior to many other
> tools when doing things the right way.
So you say, but with an admitted nearly decade old knowledge of the program.
There is not just one right way to develop a webpage.
>> Not a very strong argument.
>>
>> Still comes down to you having an opinion - one you have based on little
>> knowledge of Dreamweaver - and very little if anything to counter the
>> evidence that shows otherwise: the fact the product is made for, marketed
>> to, and priced for pros, the fact that at least apparently many pro shops
>> value the skill set of being able to use it well (in addition to other
>> skills), etc.
>>
>> In other words, you have your opinion vs. the facts we have been able to
>> find, and they are at odds.
>
> As I have already explained, this is not an accurate characterization.
You have made that claim, which is not the same thing as an explanation.
> Something like whether Dreamweaver is a suitable tool for modern
> best-practices web development is not really a fact that can be
> objectively established. The facts you are referring to are merely
> indirect indications of opinions other might hold.
So we have evidence that there are a large number of professional web
developers who disagree with you and think Dreamweaver is a professional
tool. Pretty much seems to me that makes it one. Sounds like you are
arguing a somewhat different perspective that you think it should not be...
but that does not mean it is not.
And your arguments about why it should not be are based on your own view of
how things should be done, when in reality there is not just one way, and
your understanding of a product you have not used in close to a decade.
Why do you think so many web development organizations list Dreamweaver
skills as one of the skills they want in employees?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In what way? You apply selectors to segments of code and can view them with
> > different style sheets - either screen and print (etc.) or different ones
> > you are testing. I do not see this as working against that separation.
>
> The model it provides actively encourages violation of the
> structure/layout separation, while simultaneously providing no
> substantial benefit to those who wish to preserve it.
>
> Look, there's really not much to say here. The supposedly professional
> web developers you pointed me to who you say use Dreamweaver... their
> sites and portfolios make my case much more effectively than any amount
> of theoretical argument could.
I tried to tell you...
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-B6054D.0...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/19/10 11:17 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >> That and since you do not see the value in many of the features of
> >> Dreamweaver then others likely do not either.
> >>
> >>>> But in each of the cases you give, you can make the same
> >>>> mistakes in BBEdit (poor use of CSS, say).
> >>>
> >>> Hand-coding encourages DRY because you have to type a lot more to
> >>> RY.
> >>
> >> So Dreamweaver makes it easier to get work done, therefore you are
> >> likely to do more work than you should (including work you should
> >> not).
> >
> > Dreamweaver makes it easier to do things the wrong way without
> > making it easier to do things the right way. In fact, it's inferior
> > to many other tools when doing things the right way.
>
> So you say, but with an admitted nearly decade old knowledge of the
> program.
I doubt you can point to any comments I've made that are no longer
applicable to current versions of Dreamweaver. Detailed knowledge of
how the program works is unnecessary to my arguments, because I'm
objecting to the approach, not the implementation.
> There is not just one right way to develop a webpage.
There are many wrong ways to develop a web page.
> >> Not a very strong argument.
> >>
> >> Still comes down to you having an opinion - one you have based on
> >> little knowledge of Dreamweaver - and very little if anything to
> >> counter the evidence that shows otherwise: the fact the product is
> >> made for, marketed to, and priced for pros, the fact that at least
> >> apparently many pro shops value the skill set of being able to use
> >> it well (in addition to other skills), etc.
> >>
> >> In other words, you have your opinion vs. the facts we have been
> >> able to find, and they are at odds.
> >
> > As I have already explained, this is not an accurate
> > characterization.
>
> You have made that claim, which is not the same thing as an
> explanation.
>
> > Something like whether Dreamweaver is a suitable tool for modern
> > best-practices web development is not really a fact that can be
> > objectively established. The facts you are referring to are merely
> > indirect indications of opinions other might hold.
>
> So we have evidence that there are a large number of professional web
> developers who disagree with you and think Dreamweaver is a
> professional tool.
No, we don't. We have a handful of mostly very unimpressive supposedly
professional web outfits that you turned up with unspecified search
criteria.
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > Not saying it is the right tool for every job (I have been
> > clear it is not) but I do not get why you think just because someone
> > is using DW they would not be able to work with other tools and
> > technologies, too.
>
> Because once one understands modern best-practices web development, one
> realizes that Dreamweaver basically just gets in the way. Therefore, if
> someone is still using Dreamweaver, is stands to reason they don't
> actually understand modern best-practices web development.
You're stuck in the Snit circus, ZnU. Get out.
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I tend to find these sort of threads somewhat useful as a mechanism for
developing my own positions on issues. This one does seem to have run
its course, though, with Snit now saying nothing new from post to post.