DreamWeaver MX - whos using it?
Andy J
that was terrible. It use to re-write code for you e.g. Dynamically created
loops.
I was just wondering how many coders out there have made the jump from CF
Studio to MX either by choice, or because there work has forced the upgrade,
and whats the verdict?
Andy Jarrett
Jim Davis
"Andy J" <awjarrett [at] hotmail [dot] com> wrote in message
news:ujq43vf...@corp.supernews.com...
Well, at the risk of sounding extremist: you can have my CFStudio when you
pry it from my cold, dead fingers. ;^)
Jim Davis
Roger
[dot] com> wrote:
> I was just wondering how many coders out there have made the jump from CF
>Studio to MX either by choice, or because there work has forced the upgrade,
>and whats the verdict?
I like the *idea* of DWMX, but not the reality. If nothing else, the
thing is just too unstable... across two different machines and three
different OS installations, it still manages to crash every time it
tries to load the index.cfm from one of my Fusebox'd apps.
--
Roger
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Jochem van Dieten
Most coders I know that have jumped, either forced or by free will, do
actually like it better after a while. But they are usually the real
hot-shots, working on webservices, CFC's etc. which are better supported
in Dreamweaver MX. For the real grunt-work with databases etc. I don't
see that much advantage.
Jochem
--
Who will be switching as soon as his copy arrives.
Al Everett
com> wrote:
> I was just wondering how many coders out there have made the jump from CF
>Studio to MX either by choice, or because there work has forced the upgrade,
>and whats the verdict?
I've been trying to use it to get used to it, but...
All of my familiar keyboard shortcuts are gone. The one I miss most is
CTRL-M (find matching tag). So, for now, I'm using DWMX to stay in step with
my co-workers but I've set up CFStudio5 as an external editor to use for
"real" coding.
Rob Wahmann
"Andy J" <awjarrett [at] hotmail [dot] com> wrote in message news:ujq43vf...@corp.supernews.com...
GuyInTn
I haven't had any issues with it. However I still use homesite 5 if I
need to a global find and replace. I think it is easier to do it with
HS instead of DWMX.
GuyInTn
ryan m
the bomb) I was using Dreamweaver on a Mac forever, and now that I'm
doing most of my sites with Cold Fusion, I'm using DWMX on a PC. As I
only used CF Studio for a couple months before DWMX came out (that
shows you how new I am to CF...), I never got used to it enough to
miss it. I've never had MX crash (well, maybe once) but I've never
really had issues with it.
ryan masuga
"Andy J" <awjarrett [at] hotmail [dot] com> wrote in message news:<ujq43vf...@corp.supernews.com>...
Jesse Houwing
> I finally made the switch to DWMX. So far it is a nice application and
> I haven't had any issues with it. However I still use homesite 5 if I
> need to a global find and replace. I think it is easier to do it with
> HS instead of DWMX.
I've switched to DW MX,
but there are still a few annoying bug together with CFMX.
for example the CFfunction tag had a output="boolean" option.
Default=true. But DWMX only inserts the attribute if you tag it (thus
inserting true.
Same sort of problem with the cfsetting tag. The trace...blah attribute
is no longer supported in CF MX, but is inserted anyways, resulting in a
stacktrace on the CF page, until you remove the damn thing.
Also... if you have the following code in your page:
<cfoutput>#dateFormat(now(), "HH:mm")#
to show the current time of day it saves this actually as:
<cfoutput>#dateFormat(now(), "HH:mm")#
And when you save it again it becomes:
<cfoutput>#dateFormat(now(), &quot;HH:mm&quot;)#
Only way to get it working again is saving it as:
<cfoutput>#dateFormat(now(), 'HH:mm')#
Or changing the code in notepad or something.
Appart from those annoyances, I like it.
Jesse
Jesse Houwing
> I finally made the switch to DWMX. So far it is a nice application and
> I haven't had any issues with it. However I still use homesite 5 if I
> need to a global find and replace. I think it is easier to do it with
> HS instead of DWMX.
I've switched to DW MX,
Mike Hazard
Studio with addition CFMX tag support) included. Plus Flash has become a
nifty tool, even for those of us who spend our time looking at code and not
drawing pretty pictures.
I'm a big fan of DWMX. I don't miss Studio much at all. Of course, judging
from some of the problems others have had (crashes, resource spikes, etc), I
too would hate it...
Mike
"Andy J" <awjarrett [at] hotmail [dot] com> wrote in message
news:ujq43vf...@corp.supernews.com...
ryan m
time looking at code in Flash as I do in DWMX!
ryan
"Mike Hazard" <mhaz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<GsK%8.198366$uk2.66...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
toomanyjoes
can't beat Dreamweaver, some of you who complain about it may have
great coding skill but I'd hate to see what your pages LOOK like.
After all the user doesn't see the code. DWMX is the best mix of the
two you could have. Weaker on the coding side, but the visual you get
while designing more that makes up for that. It also saves you the
time it takes to switch back and forth between two programs.
fig...@masuga.com (ryan m) wrote in message news:<e823d509.02072...@posting.google.com>...
Rob Wahmann
"toomanyjoes" <tooma...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:79da7349.02072...@posting.google.com...
Jim Davis
"toomanyjoes" <tooma...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:79da7349.02072...@posting.google.com...
> can't beat Dreamweaver, some of you who complain about it may have
> great coding skill but I'd hate to see what your pages LOOK like. After
> all the user doesn't see the code.
This is bull. And inderstanding of how something is built does not preclude
the artistic sense required to build it well.
A great architect knows how to tie in with city infrastructure, knows
eletrical and plumbing needs and yet may still create a beautiful building.
A great artist often knows the (chemical) composition of their paints and
dyes but is still capable of creating emotion on canvas. They know not only
that they have a brush but also how different quality hair holds the paint
and how the number/configuration of the bristles affect the stroke.
The user doesn't see the code, just at the viewer never sees the paints and
brushes and canvas. They see only the quality or lack of quality displayed
in the result.
Our medium is (generally) used to convery information, enable work to be
completed and entertain. For this an artist is good, but a designer is
better. I consider a designer somebody that understands their medium,
tools, deadlines and, most importantly, their audience. An artist is
generally less concern with deadlines or their audience. An artist is more
concern with their art than with their product.
A designer knows that in this medium download time is important. They know
that simple designs are both easier to construct and more likely to be
portable across platforms. They know that the machine they design on is not
the machine that will be used to view their work.
A good designer knows that it's rarely about making it "look good" but
almost always about making it "work well".
Understanding your medium may not be required for many crafts, but it helps
in all crafts. Somebody that designs web content using soley a WYSIWYG tool
may understand the result but not the medium. Also the full range of the
medium is never opened to the WYSIWYG user - they get only the subset that
the tool understands/provides.
HTML is a coding discipline - any WYSIWYG tool is removing you, at least a
little, from the medium.
> DWMX is the best mix of the
> two you could have. Weaker on the coding side, but the visual you get
> while designing more that makes up for that. It also saves you the
> time it takes to switch back and forth between two programs.
How does it save you the time switching between programs? You still have to
test in mutliple platforms, right? Again, a designer knows that the image
they see on their screen may end up very different on somebody else's.
Unfortunately a WYSIWYG tool gives you the false impression that that's
"it".
Of course this "time saving" is only a plus if you spend very little time in
code view - if you spend much of it there then there's no saving, is there?
This isn't a "design vrs code" debate - that's ridiculous, old-style
thinking. Think of people that you may have worked with. The best people
to work with, the ones that get the best results - they always have
multi-discipline understanding (if not expertise). The best designers
understand coding and the best coders understand design (even if they can't
do it).
Jim Davis
toomanyjoes
absolutely nothing to do with my first post. I'm not saying a good
coder can't be a good designer as well. I'm saying designing with
CFStudio vs. DWMX (which you didn't mention anything about in your
long tedious reply) is like painting, referencing your example, with a
finger rather than a brush. I also inferred that coding CF in DW is
like using plastic tools for plumbing. I'm simply saying that DWMX is
a good combination and allows you to code well as well as design
really well. So in the future, almighty FAQ writer Jim, lets stick to
the topic and not bore everyone with insipid examples and nonsensical
illustrations.
Not a word
||
||
\/
Andy Jarrett
>Weaker on the coding side, but the visual you get
>while designing more that makes up for that. It also saves you the
>time it takes to switch back and forth between two programs.
Then
>I'm simply saying that DWMX is
> a good combination and allows you to code well as well as design
> really well.
----------
Next
>some of you who complain about it may have
>great coding skill but I'd hate to see what your pages LOOK like.
followed up with
>I'm not saying a good coder can't be a good designer as well.
Just my 2 cents
Andy J
"toomanyjoes" <tooma...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:79da7349.02072...@posting.google.com...
Jim Davis
reply with "Piss off" and agree to disagree, but I'll humor you since you
seem to have some misconceptions here.
First off I have no idea about which FAQ you're talking about. To my
knowledge I've never written a FAQ of any kind. Not that I mind having
"almighty" attached to my name (looks good on the resume), it should
probably be for something that I know about.
Every statement in my reply pertaining to "WYSIWYG" is, by definition a
reference to Dreamweaver (and Frontpage, NetObjects Fusion, et al). If you
don't know that Dreamweaver is a WYSIWYG tool then it backs up my argument
that people that use these tools often know nothing about the medium in
which they work.
Your post: "some of you who complain about it may have great coding skill
but I'd hate to see what your pages LOOK like". The inference here is
clear: using a coding tool leads to poor design. Was that not your point?
It seemed pretty clear. Rob and Andy also seem to have fallen under that
conclusion - so if we're wrong please let us know.
All of my negative comments stem directly from that sentence. If I missed
your point then I apologize andask you to clarify.
WYSIWYG tools (and, remember now, that means Dreamweaver) only allow you to
"design" with the tools they give you. Either you accept the code they
provide or you have to rewrite it yourself.
Let's bottom line it: your post indicates that using a coding tool
(CFStudio) inhibits the quality of design (by inferring that people that use
one have bad-looking pages). My post indicates that our medium (the Web) is
code-based, so your greatest freedom and quality can only come from a coding
tool. WYSIWYG tools (Dreamweaver) by definition remove options from you by
abstracting complex constucts into canned (generic, not optimized) code.
WYSIWYG tools can be useful, but I strongly feel that people can't use them
as the crutch they are all too often used for.
Jim Davis
"toomanyjoes" <tooma...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:79da7349.02072...@posting.google.com...
toomanyjoes
understanding.
>Weaker on the coding side, but the visual you get
>while designing more that makes up for that. It also saves you the
>time it takes to switch back and forth between two programs (Using
DW 3 and CFStudio I would switch between the two in order to get the
best of both worlds).
Then
>I'm simply saying that DWMX is
> a good combination and allows you to code well (DWMX allows you to
code reasonably well although not as well as CFStudio) as well as
design
> really well (Designing in DWMX is MUCH faster and more efficient
than designing in CFStudio).
Final Thought: Thus the reason I didn't say you can code really well
as well as design really well. I said you can code well, and design
really well.
----------
Next
>(emphasize)<b>SOME</b> (not all) of you who complain about it may
have
>great coding skill but I'd hate to see what your pages LOOK like.
followed up with
>I'm not saying a good coder can't be a good designer as well.
Final Thought: Take rob's page for instance, great looking page, but
prolly could have done it in half the time using DWMX for design.
"Andy Jarrett" <awjarrett [at] hotmail [dot] com> wrote in message news:<uk2m8qq...@corp.supernews.com>...
Jim Davis
"toomanyjoes" <tooma...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:79da7349.02072...@posting.google.com...
> understanding.
Whole world's crazy but you, eh?
Were you always an ass or is this behavior a result of using Dreamweaver?
Jim Davis
Rob Wahmann
Rob Wahmann
"Jim Davis" <newsm...@vboston.com> wrote in message news:ahsbf...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Rafael Torres
<newsm...@vboston.com> wrote:
>WYSIWYG tools (and, remember now, that means Dreamweaver) only allow you to
>"design" with the tools they give you. Either you accept the code they
>provide or you have to rewrite it yourself.
>
>Let's bottom line it: your post indicates that using a coding tool
>(CFStudio) inhibits the quality of design (by inferring that people that use
>one have bad-looking pages). My post indicates that our medium (the Web) is
>code-based, so your greatest freedom and quality can only come from a coding
>tool. WYSIWYG tools (Dreamweaver) by definition remove options from you by
>abstracting complex constucts into canned (generic, not optimized) code.
>
The thing with Dreamweaver (and especially the new MX version) is that
one can work in many different ways. Most novices will only work in
design view, and never see any code. Others will mostly work in the
design view and make minor adjustments in the code, which dreamweaver
will respect.
My personal preference is working 99% of the time in code view, and
getting instant visual feedback in the design view (using the split
window). Also sometimes I just want to quickly get to a specific form
field or another part of a long page. Again the split view works great
for this. In DWMX you also get code hinting when writing code (this
includes most server side programming languages).
I would go as far as to say that it isn't fair anymore to call DW a
WYSIWYG tool in the sense you describe.
Rafi Torres