Dreamweaver dethroned?

[cool11]

Some applications gained reputation over the years for their quality.
One of them is Dreamweaver.
It is the king of web design programs.
But I cannot tell for how long. Technology in web seems to run very fast these days.

Besides the visual approach in web development which is undoubtly useful, there are also other elements in modern sites.

I have many thoughts about how we will build the sites of the future.
We learned dreamweaver, it is powerful, each version take us to a new level.
But please take a look at these:

http://dn.codegear.com/article/34068
http://www.codegear.com/Products/Delphi/DelphiforPHP/tabid/237/Default.aspx
http://www.codegear.com/Products/Delphi/Delphi2007forWin32/tabid/236/Default.aspx


I do not know if I misunderstood something but I thought dreamweaver was the killer application out there, about almost anything related to the web development. Am I wrong?

If delphi for php is a revolution in it's area, does this mean that dreamweaver will be used only as a visual editor? No better than the existing basic php implementation will be introduced in future version?

I know that we all wait a new version of dreamweaver.
I do not think will beat delphi-for php in its area.
Seems to difficult an application like dreamweaver to beat every other similar application.

Not to mention about mac versions of these tools...

Please think about it twice.
We love dreamweaver but does the future web belongs to it?
What the future holds for web development tools, dreamweaver, and mac os x related applications?

 

[Me1000]

Lets wait till DW9 before we say it can't be in the future!

I think it can be in the future, a WYSIYG AJAX editor?
hey it could happen!

 

[rogersmj]

Dethroned? Uh, yeah...Dreamweaver and every other WYSIWYG web dev app out there is dethroned as soon as someone wants to do more than make their web page a glorified Word document: they get some common sense and learn to just write HTML and CSS using a text editor. Saves time, makes your possibilities endless, and doesn't require any bloated software. The market for software like Dreamweaver is pretty small for that very reason. If you stick with using only a WYSIWYG app, you're usually limiting yourself to 10% of what's possible on the web.

 

[Cult Follower]

I wouldn't work with anything other than dreamweaver, and I can't wait till the next version.

 

[radiantm3]

Dethroned? Uh, yeah...Dreamweaver and every other WYSIWYG web dev app out there is dethroned as soon as someone wants to do more than make their web page a glorified Word document: they get some common sense and learn to just write HTML and CSS using a text editor. Saves time, makes your possibilities endless, and doesn't require any bloated software. The market for software like Dreamweaver is pretty small for that very reason. If you stick with using only a WYSIWYG app, you're usually limiting yourself to 10% of what's possible on the web.

I agree completely, unless you hand code in dreamweaver. But there are much better text editors out there than dreamweaver so that's pretty pointless.

 

[Sdashiki]

I agree completely, unless you hand code in dreamweaver. But there are much better text editors out there than dreamweaver so that's pretty pointless.

Its the "standard" though, and you cant change the status quo of old farts.

I recently picked up Nvu instead of DW, and I must say, Im diggin it. Wish it had things in floating toolbars instead of having to double click to get at details, but w/e.

As for those who say hand code only, there are very many times when you need WYSIWYG because of layouts and stuff where every pixel matters. I hate having to code, refresh and code again...

Dreamweaver is a nightmare to code, visually or by hand. I do both all the time and no matter what I am always tweaking one or the other, its a balancing game.

And the balance is always thrown way of kilter when I test for FF, but then when IM happy test for IE, and it breaks.

sigh.

No matter what editor you use, IE will always be the problem.

 

[rogersmj]

As for those who say hand code only, there are very many times when you need WYSIWYG because of layouts and stuff where every pixel matters. I hate having to code, refresh and code again...

In most of the layouts I do, every pixel matters. I'm extremely picky. But I still handcode. I guess over the years I've developed a "browser in my head", where I can usually get it 98% of the way there just by writing the code and "seeing" the way it will look in my mind, without ever looking at it in a browser. Then for the last few adjustments, yeah I have to refresh the browser a few times -- big deal. It's still cleaner, more efficient, and faster than a WYSIWYG editor, and it's a skill you'll get better and better at once you give up the training wheels.

Plus, if you use something like TextMate, you can refresh the browser without ever leaving the editor. I'll have TextMate open on one screen and my browser on the other (or side by side on one screen), and when I make some changes in TextMate I can hit Cmd-R and it will refresh the browser, without me having to change focus to it. Very handy.

 

[dpaanlka]

I think people who exclusively hand code do it just so they can say they do it.

There really isn't a reason to insist on hand coding everything. Dreamweaver makes fine pages, and it saves time.

 

[eto]

I think people who exclusively hand code do it just so they can say they do it.

There really isn't a reason to insist on hand coding everything. Dreamweaver makes fine pages, and it saves time.

It does seem to be an elitist statement... until you actually start doing it and you see for yourself how much better (more efficient, more accurate, not gummed up with "MM_" crap,...) hand coding really is.


get your skills up and you'll agree.

On the other hand, Dreamweaver is a pretty good organizational tool. FTP kinda sucks but it seems to be getting better with newer versions.

 

[rogersmj]

I think people who exclusively hand code do it just so they can say they do it.

There really isn't a reason to insist on hand coding everything. Dreamweaver makes fine pages, and it saves time.

Wow. Just wow. That statement truly amazes me. And, as a someone who is a professional web developer, it insults me too. Dreamweaver can't do jack compared to what most real web developers have to do. If you knew anything about web development, you would know that.

If all you're going to do is throw up a few static HTML pages that almost never change, and you don't care much about having complete control over the layout, then yeah Dreamweaver is fine.

But for anything more than "Hi, this is my website!", like, oh, I don't know, a real dynamic web app with a database backend and maybe some nice AJAX to make the interface easier to use, it's impossible to get it done in Dreamweaver. Not just hard -- impossible, unless you totally abandon the WYSIWYG part of Dreamweaver -- and then what's the point of having it? Do you really think all these fantastic web sites on the web were made in something like Dreamweaver??? If so, you must also think that modern cars are built out tools you can find in anybody's garage.

Tell me what you do for a living so I can find a way to incredibly belittle your skill set and insult you too.

 

[dpaanlka]

It does seem to be an elitist statement... until you actually start doing it and you see for yourself how much better (more efficient, more accurate, not gummed up with "MM_" crap,...) hand coding really is.

I do it all the time and I find it very annoying. I have to do it whenever Dreamweaver is unable to do something exactly the way I want, but I find that is very infrequent. I don't care about how efficient and organized the code itself is - the end user never sees or cares about it.

The elitism would be your assumption that I don't know how to do it.

 

[Sdashiki]

Wow. Just wow. That statement truly amazes me. And, as a someone who is a professional web developer, it insults me too. Dreamweaver can't do jack compared to what most real web developers have to do. If you knew anything about web development, you would know that.

If all you're going to do is throw up a few static HTML pages that almost never change, and you don't care much about having complete control over the layout, then yeah Dreamweaver is fine.

But for anything more than "Hi, this is my website!", like, oh, I don't know, a real dynamic web app with a database backend and maybe some nice AJAX to make the interface easier to use, it's impossible to get it done in Dreamweaver. Not just hard -- impossible, unless you totally abandon the WYSIWYG part of Dreamweaver -- and then what's the point of having it? Do you really think all these fantastic web sites on the web were made in something like Dreamweaver??? If so, you must also think that modern cars are built out tools you can find in anybody's garage.

Tell me what you do for a living so I can find a way to incredibly belittle your skill set and insult you too.

he only said you dont need to hand code everything.

he wasnt saying DONT hand code and use DW or your a fool.

but you took this way to personally, and from your quote it seems you should just be happy that YOU know what you know. if you believe what you know is better than someone elses idea, go right ahead and think that.

but dont belittle someone just because he finds DW to do what HE wants.

if you dont like DW, awesome, but dont rag on someone for thinking its good.

for a "professional" designer, you dont sound like one.

 

[dpaanlka]

Wow. Just wow. That statement truly amazes me. And, as a someone who is a professional web developer, it insults me too. Dreamweaver can't do jack compared to what most real web developers have to do. If you knew anything about web development, you would know that.

If all you're going to do is throw up a few static HTML pages that almost never change, and you don't care much about having complete control over the layout, then yeah Dreamweaver is fine.

But for anything more than "Hi, this is my website!", like, oh, I don't know, a real dynamic web app with a database backend and maybe some nice AJAX to make the interface easier to use, it's impossible to get it done in Dreamweaver. Not just hard -- impossible, unless you totally abandon the WYSIWYG part of Dreamweaver -- and then what's the point of having it? Do you really think all these fantastic web sites on the web were made in something like Dreamweaver??? If so, you must also think that modern cars are built out tools you can find in anybody's garage.

Tell me what you do for a living so I can find a way to incredibly belittle your skill set and insult you too.

How you got "Dreamweaver is better than you" out of "you don't have to hand code everything" is beyond me.

 

[rogersmj]

he only said you dont need to hand code everything.

he wasnt saying DONT hand code and use DW or your a fool.

but you took this way to personally, and from your quote it seems you should just be happy that YOU know what you know. if you believe what you know is better than someone elses idea, go right ahead and think that.

but dont belittle someone just because he finds DW to do what HE wants.

if you dont like DW, awesome, but dont rag on someone for thinking its good.

for a "professional" designer, you dont sound like one.

When he said

"I think people who exclusively hand code do it just so they can say they do it."

I'd say that's pretty damn insulting. It's like me saying to someone who can build or repair something really complicated, like car transmissions..."You guys just make it look complicated, I could fix that with a wrench and a hammer."

Yeah, I took it personally, because he basically said that people who handcode don't actually know any better and are just showing off. It's exactly because I spend all my time doing web applications that it bothered me so much.

I know I reacted strongly, but how could what he said not be seen as insulting to people who have spent years learning advanced techniques and developing their skills, only to be told by someone using the equivalent of a kid's toy in the industry that the pros are just "showing off"??

I'm happy for the people that can get away with doing their sites in just Dreamweaver -- I really am. But when people come up with problems, it's usually because of the limitations of Dreamweaver. And the stuff I do cannot be done in Dreamweaver. We work with multi-layered template rendering systems, advanced CSS techniques, and dozens of other things that Dreamweaver would never be able to handle. I don't go around demeaning other people's professions, and I don't think it's outside the realm of reason to expect the same.

 

[dpaanlka]

I'd say that's pretty damn insulting. It's like me saying to someone who can build or repair something really complicated, like car transmissions..."You guys just make it look complicated, I could fix that with a wrench and a hammer."

No it's not, it's like saying saying carpenters should exclusively use hand-crank drills because it is more precise and gives you more control over a power drill.

And yes, I firmly stand by my statement that people who exclusively hand code everything, including the "hello i'm a static web page" type pages are being wasteful in their refusal to touch Dreamweaver or any other app.

 

[eto]

I don't care about how efficient and organized the code itself is - the end user never sees or cares about it.

Do you think that Bandwidth should be an issue?

edit: Or load times?

No it's not, it's like saying saying carpenters should exclusively use hand-crank drills because it is more precise and gives you more control over a power drill.

If you don't use hand-crack drills you're a hack. and that's the bottom-line!

 

[dpaanlka]

Do you think that Bandwidth should be an issue?

Yeah for people using 9600 bauds. Seriously, some people make Dreamweaver pages sound like they're 50mb of excess code. I don't think ~8 - 18kb for an HTML page is unreasonable in the day of cable modems (that seems to be the size range of all my System 7 Today pages).

EDIT: Which reminds me, I have to manually edit a lot of stuff on all those pages because of the nature of the site, my design rule is they have to display properly in Netscape 4.8. Dreamweaver makes it easy to do that, and I love the templating system. Dreamweaver lets me get the basic gist of the design down, then I tweak it for Netscape 4.8 compatibility if the need arises.

 

[eto]

Depends on what you are building. System 7 rocks.

I used to be dreamweaver all the way, but after weening myself away
from the wysiwyg editor and on to strictly hand coding
(most of the time in dreamweaver) I've found that the time that I have to
sit in front of my computer has decreased significantly.

On a side note, if bittorrent did not exist I would be using TextWrangler exclusively.

 

[dllavaneras]

Well, I wouldn't know about Dreamweaver getting dethroned, as I barely use 10% of the things it can do As for those saying they don't use DW for serious, pro web development, what program do you use?

 

[Starflyer]

What if one wanted to get into this what you call "hand coding", is there a good starting place? I am a print designer and know nothing of HTML

 

[eto]

What if one wanted to get into this what you call "hand coding", is there a good starting place? I am a print designer and know nothing of HTML

find a decent book, start looking at other's code, use the web as a resource, and most importantly.. practice practice practice

 

[rogersmj]

No it's not, it's like saying saying carpenters should exclusively use hand-crank drills because it is more precise and gives you more control over a power drill.

And yes, I firmly stand by my statement that people who exclusively hand code everything, including the "hello i'm a static web page" type pages are being wasteful in their refusal to touch Dreamweaver or any other app.

Your analogy is not correct either. But OK, well, I'm sorry I blew up and I'll let it lie.

If I need a really fast and dirty web page though, for me personally it's still faster to hand-code it -- that's just the way I do it, because it's faster for me, I'm not "showing off" and I didn't appreciate your assumption that because I don't do it your way I'm being elitist. I understand where you're coming from though for using a good tool for a basic page, and at that point I suppose it boils down to preference. Just don't indiscriminately apply that kind of thinking.

<html>
<head>
   <title>Test page</title>
   <style type="text/css">
      p { color: red; }
   </style>
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi there!</p>
</body>
</html>

I still wrote that in less time than it would take me to open up Dreamweaver and setup a new document and all that. For others, not so much...and that's fine. So obviously Dreamweaver still has a place...just not for everyone, and not because we're elitist.

What if one wanted to get into this what you call "hand coding", is there a good starting place? I am a print designer and know nothing of HTML

Tons of resources out there on the web, just run a Google search and find one that you think is easy to read. And like eto said, practice a lot. This is one field that's really really easy to start in, because the syntax and getting a basic page up is quite simple, but takes years to build into an art.

 

[Flowbee]

I found Dreamweaver useful back in the days of table-based design. Keeping track of all those nested tables was a little tricky (for me, anyway) in text mode. Since jumping on the CSS bandwagon, I don't think I've opened Dreamweaver once. I know DW has CSS tools, but there are other - cheaper - apps that I'm perfectly happy with.

 

[angelneo]

To be fair when you hand-code everything, it's fine when you are doing a moderately sized site. But you will get sick of coding that dropdown button or that mouseover effect, if you need to redo it again and again for different sites or bigger sites to the point that you wish for a easier way to do it. That's why we have companies who produce ajax libraries or DW. You are not being an idiot for not hand-coding everything but it saves us time to do more important stuff instead of those repetitive tasks.

 

[Westside guy]

It does seem to be an elitist statement... until you actually start doing it and you see for yourself how much better (more efficient, more accurate, not gummed up with "MM_" crap,...) hand coding really is.


get your skills up and you'll agree.

I think this is a totally bogus statement, but whatever floats your boat.

I hand-coded for about a decade. Then I started using Dreamweaver maybe a year and a half ago. Hand-coding is still what I do when I'm first laying out a new design; but then I create a Dreamweaver template (or set of templates) and generally work from those since it is just plain faster. Combine those templates with Contribute, and I have a way for my co-workers to easily manage content without having to worry about HTML coding or lots of training - and that frees me up to work more on scripts and less on basic web maintenance.