Slashdot Mirror


Dreamweaver Is Dying; Long Live Drupal!

Barence writes "Here's an interesting blog post by a designer who reckons Dreamweaver is dying. It's not Dreamweaver's fault, though. Nor is the problem Adobe and its development team — the last Dreamweaver CS4 version was the most impressive release in years. Moreover, although Microsoft Expression Web poses a far more credible threat than FrontPage could muster, Dreamweaver remains the best HTML/CSS page-based editor available. The real problem for Dreamweaver and for its users is that the nature of the web is changing dramatically."

318 comments

  1. Death... in MY Dreamweaver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I highly doubt this, I check NetCraft daily, and I've seen NO confirmation of Dreamweaver dying!

    1. Re:Death... in MY Dreamweaver? by Netcraft+Confirms+It · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dreamweaver isn't dying. Otherwise I would have confirmed it.

    2. Re:Death... in MY Dreamweaver? by mths · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt this. I wonder if this article was written years ago. I never understood how serious webdesign / development could be done with dreamweaver

    3. Re:Death... in MY Dreamweaver? by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth: Mods were sleeping, I think. You were funny, on topic and have an OK username...

  2. Re:1st post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Congratulations on getting first post. A copy of Microsoft Windows Live Expression Web Express Edition is in the mail.

  3. Is Dreamweaver good? by siDDis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've never tried it, when I do web design I do it with Gimp, Vim and Firebug. And I think that combo works great!

    How do Dreamweaver compare to Vim? Is it advanced enough to not fool users to use css styled text for strong expressions?

    1. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Troll? Why is this a Troll? People who actually know what they do don't need hand-holding. I agree: Gimp, Vim and Firebug is all one needs. (Add in a bit Inkscape too)

      A designer might need Dreamweaver, but that's most likely because he doesn't know the underlying structures. Now, I admit, the Designer-Tech profile is quite seldom though ;-))

    2. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by CarpetShark · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Is it advanced enough to not fool users to use css styled text for strong expressions?

      No, it's not. In fact, it didn't really cope well with CSS at all, last time I checked. Dreamweaver was designed back when everyone was using tables to build sites. For that, it worked, because it's hard to screw up something that's all wrong from the beginning. Well, they did actually manage to screw it up anyway for a while, by loading up your HTML, and reformatting the whole thing just because you edited a line and then saved.

      Basically, if you don't know at least CSS and HTML (preferably object oriented programming, MVC, database, design patterns, accessibility etc. too) then you've no place messing with web design, except for doing mockups in an art package.

    3. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by JCSoRocks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dreamweaver is a great tool. I've been using it almost since it came out. (It and Future Splash, a.k.a Flash.) I've never used the "designer" type tools in dreamweaver. I've always seen it as a really powerful development environment for building sites. The Site concept and integrated FTP / server management are great. Code hints are obviously convenient and I've always appreciated how granular the code coloring / formatting is. The CSS tools are invaluable for tracking down those times when things are cascading a bit differently than you'd like. I'm also a huge fan of the search / replace tools in Dreamweaver for refactoring. The ability to scan across a selection, open document, all open documents, or an entire site is really handy. I realize text editors have similar abilities but the Site concept makes scanning across countless directories a no-brainer.

      There's gobs more but those are the first things that come to mind.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    4. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by SocialEngineer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since we've got licenses for it at my day job, I use it as my preferred webdev/design IDE. It works fairly well for that sort of thing, but it's a bit of overkill for me (I'm not working on collab projects). Of course, I hand code everything. I'll say this much; it's a fast, responsive IDE regarding its UI, code highlighting, and more. When I'm doing my independent work, though, I usually use Geany for my coding, since it's multiplatform.

      As a CMS, yeah, it's not very widely used anymore; why would someone use it, with so many CMS options available? A web based system is much, much more efficient, especially regarding cost. Anything that requires a software client, especially anything which requires paid licenses, is just asinine, in my professional opinion.

      --
      "Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
    5. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Trails · · Score: 2, Funny

      #shutTheFuckUp{ /*put your style rules here*/
      }

      Shut the fuck up

      There ya go.

    6. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Teckla · · Score: 1

      Basically, if you don't know at least CSS and HTML (preferably object oriented programming, MVC, database, design patterns, accessibility etc. too) then you've no place messing with web design, except for doing mockups in an art package.

      There are a zillion "brochure" web sites out there, and not one of those web sites requires knowledge of CSS/HTML, OOP, MVC, DB, or design patterns.

    7. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by pwizard2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm quite partial to Bluefish myself for web development work.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    8. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow I never needed Design Pattens in HTML mm I must be missing something here, oo thats right you don't need a Database Design Patterns , all you need is validation, accessibility,HTML/CSS and you don't need to be an expert.

      it's like you need to learn Data Structures to do Web Design lol

    9. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by risk+one · · Score: 4, Funny

      Surely you would want to use this more than once per page...

      I would suggest something like:

      .shut-the-fuck-up {
      text-decoration: blink;
      }

    10. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      I have used it myself before.... I agree... However, I did revert to the basics...

    11. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you think the MVC pattern belongs in a web application, maybe it's you who should stick to mockups.

      This isn't 1995. They're not desktop applications.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    12. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      div.intro:after{
      content: "Shut the fuck up!";
      }

    13. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try using Django. kthxbai

    14. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with you. There are web developers, and web amateurs. You can see them whining and bitching above.
      They think that because they read a HTML book while driving the cab, and wrote 5-liners of JavaScript that you can replace with 10 characters of CSS, that they can call themselves "developers".

      And because they live in groups, where everybody is like them, they think this is perfectly OK.

      I saw companies where a group of 30 web "developers" decided to call functions a too abstract concept for a 16 million page-views PER DAY site! I saw people editing messy PHP/HTML-pages in Dreamweaver, with the *mouse only*. I saw so much server-side code copypasta inside million-dollar-business websites, that it make would someone at a real software company scream until the end of his life.

      No structure, no grasp of basic concepts of engineering, no anything. And when the re-design came, it took them full two weeks including overtime, to change all their code everywhere. While I went home in the middle of the first day, after changing my master-templates. They wanted me to help out. But asked if my simple regular expressions would pose any danger (they thought it was black magic). And they got angry, when I replaced their thousand copies of the content box HTML with function calls to the template.
      They needed nearly two years, to cope with it, until they implemented a bad version of it Europe-wide. Of course by then, I was so far in front of them, that it again was black magic to them (I started to program client-side web application clients -- What you would call AJAX today.)

      I later realized, that such types only get their jobs, because their bosses are such types too. Up to the owner of the company. Which is the only person of the company in many cases.
      And then they only have to live up to the clients' expectations. Of course the client never knows, that you could save him 90% of the cash by actually using real programming concepts like re-usability and modularity.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I use Notepad, MS Paint, and my browser to do my web design.

      Now get off my lawn you hooligans!

    16. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Ahhh, luxury.

      I use teco and mosaic.

      And stop playing that damn music so loud!

    17. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had heard Dreamweaver was something interesting but I've found Dreamweaver to be remarkably sluggish and its regular expression support was lacking which surprised and aggravated me (given how many excellent non-copylefted free software regular expression libraries there are). Is most of Dreamweaver written in some interpreted language like Javascript? Also, it made no sense to me why I couldn't use any means of access, like SFTP, for both "local" and "remote" site definitions (or whatever they're called). I didn't get why I couldn't have as many site definitions as I wished and call them all what I wished. I'd much prefer to not have to export something via SMB or whatever protocol MacOS X allows (and last I looked it didn't let you use SFTP via the Finder's Go->Connect to Server... panel) just so one could edit a website synchronizing between two networked locations (one for testing, one for production). Dreamweaver only allowed one site definition ("remote" if I recall correctly) to use SFTP, not both "local" and "remote" and this seemed silly to me. Perhaps I missed a configuration detail but overall I was unimpressed and I ended up using SSI with far better free software text editors to edit the mostly static (X)HTML+CSS websites which are common in academia (meeting site needs and practically addressing website updater laborers). Then, from an admin perspective, knowing it came from Adobe (which is apparently quite slow with their security patches and has annoying licensing), is proprietary, and costly I found it significantly less than practical or attractive. My experience with Dreamweaver was simply not that good. Comparing Dreamweaver and Drupal, on the other hand, seems silly in an entirely different way as there is so much uncommon ground between what they can accomplish, and Drupal has plenty of annoyances all its own.

    18. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Agreed... I can design pages, have in the past, but I am by no means a coder. I fucking hate coding, some of the most boring shit on the planet.

      This whole holier than thou attitude that oozes from these "web designers" really pisses me off. Oh, you can write a few lines of html or css or javasript, you must be a fucking god. Actually, no, you're not... you're just someone attempting to be a god but really you're just a boring fuck.

      Mod parent up if you have half a brain.

    19. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      I use Notepad, MS Paint, and my browser to do my web design.

      Now get off my lawn you hooligans!

      What are you doing using a GUI? That just slows things down! I use nano to create my Gopher pages, and that's the way I likes it!

      Think I'm joking? Check out my Slashdot user number...

      Okay, I'm joking. :)

    20. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course by then, I was so far in front of them, that it again was black magic to them

      According to Clarke's Third Law, that means your web development skills are sufficiently advanced. Kudos!

    21. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Aptana its a lot nicer than Bluefish for larger projects.

    22. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Funny

      I use a large stick to do my web design. How? Well, I go down to my basement and hit the Chinese illegal immigrant I have chained to my PC until he makes the page I want.

    23. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by bXTr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's not. In fact, it didn't really cope well with CSS at all, last time I checked. Dreamweaver was designed back when everyone was using tables to build sites. For that, it worked, because it's hard to screw up something that's all wrong from the beginning.

      People used tables because that's all that was there. There were no DIV or SPAN tags, and CSS was still a pipe dream in somebody's bong. It's hard to make the claim that something was wrong from the beginning when what was right didn't exist, but I guess you don't need any real education to make revisionist history.

      Basically, if you don't know at least CSS and HTML (preferably object oriented programming, MVC, database, design patterns, accessibility etc. too) then you've no place messing with web design, except for doing mockups in an art package.

      CSS isn't really necessary for web design. People really need to learn to use HTML correctly, first and foremost, before starting with these flavor-of-the-hour technologies. Some of these things you mention have no place in web design. Business logic should never, ever be in a web page. A web page shouldn't give an unwashed rat's ass about what database or programming language, style or paradigm is being used on the backend. I'm sure that it doesn't even matter whether you use tabs or spaces in indenting code, unless you're using Piss-on (pronounced with a lisp) :).

      --
      It's a very dark ride.
    24. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by PutonBackBurner · · Score: 1

      Amen

    25. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Emacs, Firebug, and Inkscape myself, but the point is well met.

      Ok, honestly, I do resort to Photoshop if available. Illustrator also has some better pieces than Inkscape (though Inkscape's basic UI is far better, it does get a little bogged down on the complex stuff.)

    26. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2, Funny

      I write in plain text, wrapped at 50 chars per line, and make my viewers telnet to port 80 and manually GET the pages you insensitive clod!

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    27. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean:

      blink {
      background:url(do/nasty/stuff.js) #FF00FF;
      }

    28. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      I write in plain text, wrapped at 50 chars per line, and make my viewers telnet to port 80 and manually GET the pages you insensitive clod!

      50 chars? That's absurd! Go for the standard 80 chars.

    29. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by ToxicBanjo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was wondering why your lawn doesn't look the same from different sides of the street.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
    30. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I think that more and more (good) web designers are now doing a lot more hand coding. I also think that a lot of people have less reason to upgrade their tools. Especially at adobe's pricing. Freelancers who aren't doing flash have pretty much ignored CS4, at least from my own impressions. I personally prefer expression web, but I don't do WYSIWYG, I hand-write my markup.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    31. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How can you admit productivity gains from Firebug, yet ignore productivity gains given by integrated development environments?

    32. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think he's Mexican. But it's hard to tell.

    33. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by ibbie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try using Django. kthxbai

      To be fair, that's more MTV. It still rocks, though.

      --
      The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
    34. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by TihSon · · Score: 1

      I imagine you require a Fine Arts Degree of your house painters? Perhaps you aren't satisfied unless your Big Mac comes with a pedigree? I don't even want to joke about what credentials you might require of a wife ... In other words, if you are such a code snob, what the hell are you doing browsing Slashdot?

      Sorry guys, but comments like his are just inane code Diva BS, and the code on this site screws up my n800 something awful. Seemed like a nice fit.

      --
      In B.C., our fascism is green.
    35. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Gerald · · Score: 4, Funny

      80 characters should be enough for anyone.

    36. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a legal American native, you insensitive clod!

      THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!

    37. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Use Krita. It has the features Gimp lacks (like the CMYK colorspace IIRC).

      --
      $ make available
    38. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      I think I'd like SCREEM (X)HTML editor more useful if it didn't crash so often... If it didn't, it would be the perfect compromise; it is fundamentally a text editor, but it can generate CSS and DOCTYPE declarations, use templates, etc. so you don't have to know everything to write anything. Also, in my experience it tends to write non-bloated, standards compliant code. Please don't use it for a website involving serious money though, or at least, don't sue me if you do.

      --
      $ make available
    39. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by aliquis · · Score: 4, Funny

      I use a large stick to do my web design. How? Well, I go down to my basement and hit the Chinese illegal immigrant I have chained to my PC until he makes the page I want.

      Funny, I do the same to the now unemployed american citizen who can't get well-fare thanks to his country's bankruptcy.

      / The future chinese dude.

    40. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by aliquis · · Score: 2, Funny

      I draw my design with ink on the IBM punchcard which I when mail to everyone who wants them.

    41. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Thinboy00 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I later realized, that such types only get their jobs, because their bosses are such types too. Up to the owner of the company. Which is the only person of the company in many cases.
      And then they only have to live up to the clients' expectations. Of course the client never knows, that you could save him 90% of the cash by actually using real programming concepts like re-usability and modularity.

      Next time anyone gets fired from a job due to their boss's incompetence, please tell a tabloid about how much money you could save them. And back it up with a slashdot/dailywtf story so the technocracy (i.e. the slashdot etc. community) will know that the (un)published story is in fact grounded in fact, or at least is valid and/or sound.

      Please do this, so that we can all have something funny to read, and so that the client has some clue that he's being ripped off by a salesman who is too stupid to even take advantage of the high price.

      To mods:No, this is not, in fact, sarcastic.

      --
      $ make available
    42. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Thinboy00 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      fine, use Wordpress etc. Just don't try to produce raw HTML files; that would be like buying a (very large and complex) box of tools when you could just buy a Starter's kit in (the metaphor just fell apart in my mind. Sorry.)

      --
      $ make available
    43. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I use only my bare hands!

    44. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by rollercoaster375 · · Score: 1

      CSS is not a "flavor-of-the-hour" technology. It's a core part of absolutely any well-formed website.

      I thoroughly agree on the rest of your post, however.

    45. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I find Dreamweaver 8 to be an absolute piece of shit, I get more done with a plain text editor, you can spend more time fighting the piece of shit than it would take to write the XHTML by hand, that and less pain, I am SO glad I used an unlicensed copy, to anyone from the development team of that steaming pile of soggy lipsticked excrement reading this, a big hearty soulfelt bellowing

      F U C K Y O U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      --
      SARAVA!
    46. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but he uses Gimp, Vim, and Firebug... see OP

    47. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by mrbcs · · Score: 1
      Agreed. I use an old version of FIRST Page from Evrsoft. Dumb name, great editor. I've been using First Page 2000 since.. well 2000. They made a new version in 2006 I think.. after YEARS of promising it.. but it sucked. I like it because it does sort of automate a few tasks, like inserting images, but the color coding of the code is very easy on the old eyes. I'm still in the dark ages with tables instead of css... but the sites are quick and render properly in most browsers.

      /Begin anti-tables trolling ;-)

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    48. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      This is the setup I used for a long time. I now use Photoshop, TextMate and Firebug.

      The change was moving from a linux desktop to a macbook pro and my work giving me photoshop (they had the license already). Personally, I'd be fine with giving up photoshop, but I am addicted to textmate.

    49. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by devman · · Score: 1

      With Red Hat's JBoss tools plugins for Eclipse doing web development (even just plain old static html+css) in Eclipse is pretty neat now. The best part is its all FOSS.

    50. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A designer might need Dreamweaver, but that's most likely because he doesn't know the underlying structures. Now, I admit, the Designer-Tech profile is quite seldom though ;-))

      All the good web designers I know do their own HTML and CSS. Although in bigger places, the design and implementation in to code may be split. But Dreamweaver has been dead for a while to most decent web designers.

    51. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by S-100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've used Dreamweaver for a few years, and I've found it's a great tool as long as you don't get too attached to the WYSIWYG mode and its automatic style sheet generation. WYSIWYG editing generally creates horribly wrong HTML, and the automatic style sheet generation works as long as you change your style thinking from CSS to Dreamweaver's proprietary methods.

    52. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Draek · · Score: 1

      People used tables because that's all that was there. There were no DIV or SPAN tags, and CSS was still a pipe dream in somebody's bong. It's hard to make the claim that something was wrong from the beginning when what was right didn't exist, but I guess you don't need any real education to make revisionist history.

      Using something and considering it a good solution aren't necessarily related, specially when as you say it's the only solution that exists. In fact, I remember many web devs admitting that using tables for layout *was* an ugly hack and one they regretted having to use, despite not having CSS at the time.

      CSS isn't really necessary for web design. People really need to learn to use HTML correctly, first and foremost, before starting with these flavor-of-the-hour technologies. Some of these things you mention have no place in web design. Business logic should never, ever be in a web page. A web page shouldn't give an unwashed rat's ass about what database or programming language, style or paradigm is being used on the backend. I'm sure that it doesn't even matter whether you use tabs or spaces in indenting code, unless you're using Piss-on (pronounced with a lisp) :).

      Cute insult at the end, but the rest of your post is so irrelevant to the topic at hand I can only understand it if you ignored that CSS is not, in fact, a programming language nor has anything to do with the backend. CSS deals with the presentation of a webpage, which I might add *also* has no business in the webpage per se, a problem CSS seeks to solve and one that pure, vanilla HTML has in spades.

      So go, learn CSS, use it, then come back and criticise it if you can.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    53. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hand carve the holes in cards and test the code on a loom.

    54. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      How do Dreamweaver compare to Vim?

      Dreamweaver do have a spellchecker, for starters...

    55. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose it was marked troll because Dreamweaver is a full graphical IDE with drag and drop operations, and if I'm not mistaken, code completion, at the very least. VIM is a text editor -- a very good one -- but still a text editor. Just asking the question presupposes that VIM is somehow an equal if not more preferable website (not just page) development tool... I guess.

      In any case, a designer doesn't use Dreamweaver because he doesn't know the underlying structures; he does it in order to visually create the page in a quick and efficient manner. And since most web designers are visual artists, Dreamweaver (which can also do code view) gives the designer a more native perspective on design. I prefer scripting using a text editor, doing no positioning in my HTML source and using a healthy amount of IDs, classes, and divs; but I'm clearly would not be considered a web "designer"

    56. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by wrook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are web developers, and web amateurs. You can see them whining and bitching above.
      They think that because they read a HTML book while driving the cab, and wrote 5-liners of JavaScript that you can replace with 10 characters of CSS, that they can call themselves "developers".

      I know this isn't the point of your post, but I'd like to quibble with this statement. Trying to make a distinction between "amateurs" and "developers" is all well and good, but where do you draw the line?

      We already have people trying to control how we can develop things by splitting the camp between "hobbyists" and "professionals" (aka Microsoft). Their intent is to imply that if you aren't paid by a big corporation (like Microsoft) that your application is obviously shit.

      We also have people trying to provide "certification" (aka Microsoft) for various programming tasks, in a thinly disguised attempt to control standards.

      Labeling a person an "amateur" drives a wedge between the established developers and people trying to learn the ropes. As we know, regardless of qualifications, there is a whole range of ability with respect to development. We've all met the moron who couldn't code his way out of a wet paper bag, even though he has worked on large systems before and has a stack of paper "certifying" him as qualified. And we also know of people who literally coded their way out of their basement with a huge amount of knowledge.

      Those who write applications (both web applications and non-web applications) are developers. I don't care if you can only write "Hello, world."; you're a developer. But each developer has a level of ability and experience. That level must be judged individually for each person.

      This can be a problem for those starting a business without development experience. How can they hire good people? Well, let's say you were trying to build a world class soccer team. Would you hire they players by interviewing them and asking them how good they were? Or would you hire a proven coach first and get him/her to help select your team? One of these two ways works most of the time. The other doesn't. Why do we always pick the way that doesn't work?

    57. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Korbeau · · Score: 1

      Yeah, why a designer would need *design* tools anyway ... like we're all nerds and programmers and such ... read the first sentence of the summary for god sake.

    58. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by johny42 · · Score: 1

      Can't wait for the butterfly xkcd reference.

    59. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      .shut-the-fuck-up {

          text-decoration: blink;

      }

      In my previous workplace, there once was a rare moment of silence when everybody was working hard. One guy broke the silence and said the momentous words:

      Is it possible to pass an interval to the blink tag?

      He has been ridiculed ever since and there was some suggestion of printing his question on a mug or a T-Shirt. I'm slightly ashamed to say he's still my friend. Or actually, I'm proud of it :D

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    60. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      80 characters should be enough for anyone.

      A stack of punch cards is all we had back in my day!

    61. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      I prefer Bluefish to Vim personally - and, yeah, it works. Being a Linux user, i've never used Dreamweaver, but i have watched a friend use it briefly and it looks like it would be kinda handy for some things (although in no way worth the amount you have to pay for it).

      But, if you weren't capable of doing the same thing with just a text editor, then i guess you'd be likely to churn out really badly coded pages. No doubt that accounts for a significant proportion of the crap sites kicking around the web right now.

    62. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by WillKemp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't see why you'd need CMYK for the web...

    63. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      [......] so you don't have to know everything to write anything. [......]

      The problem is if you don't know everything (or at least, most of it), and leave what you don't know up to the editor, you'll almost certainly end up with crap code.

    64. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      I use Dreamweaver.

    65. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      [......] and if I'm not mistaken, code completion [......]

      I'd hope so. Even Bluefish does code completion now (Bluefish unstable v1.3.4) - and it's very handy, too!

    66. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      That's why there are a zillion crap web sites out there!

    67. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by oliderid · · Score: 1

      The real issue is that there are now two different kind of web professionals: web designers and web developers.

      As a web developer if you can't write from scratch CSS2 based layout without dreamweaver and the like then you should buy yourself a CSS2 manual quickly.

      Sure there are still some clever people out there who can still do both. But their number are shrinking fast. And in a near future things like canvas and HTML5 will truly force you to choose your camp: coding or design.

      Personally I use Gimp to edit layout I receive from web designers.

    68. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      All jokes aside for the moment, I have tried Dreamweaver. The colors were pretty and all, but all I really have ever needed was Notepad + something for my graphics + a few browsers to see how it renders.

      I'm surprised Firefox hasn't taken their "View Source code" function (with all of its nice colors as well) and used it to have a built-in Dreamweaver kinda thingy.

    69. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you tried the web developer extension for firefox? It lets you modify the stylesheets on the fly at least, not sure about html source.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    70. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      I use teco and mosaic

      Brilliant :)

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    71. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Fross · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're using vim and writing html by hand, then as a web developer you don't know what you're doing. You don't know what tools you could use that up your productivity a great deal.

      You may as well say you can write applications by rubbing the hard drive platter with magnets. It could get the job done, but there are better higher level tools that allow you to actually get more of your job done.

      And before you say "I can hand code HTML better than a web monkey in dreamweaver can assemble it", just how fast would you be if you learned to use something like dreamweaver and applied yourself to it?

    72. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Fred_A · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't see why you'd need CMYK for the web...

      Because some people print their webpages, duh.

      You're obviously not an elite webdesigner.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    73. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      People used tables because that's all that was there. There were no DIV or SPAN tags, and CSS was still a pipe dream in somebody's bong. It's hard to make the claim that something was wrong from the beginning when what was right didn't exist, but I guess you don't need any real education to make revisionist history.

      All very nice if it were true. I remember using Dreamweaver in the late '90s, and it certainly had CSS functionality. Not so much the positioning functionality we expect from CSS today, but cascading style sheet functionality none the less.

      Also, I remember creating a demo web page for myself that used layers so that the whole site (such as it was) was loaded up and each link just affected visibility of various divs. That was where I had the biggest issue because Netscape 4 and IE4 needed different code. This was in the late '90s not prehistoric times. I also have a copy of IE 4 on cd which states on the front "Only for distribution with a new PC" (copyright MS 1995-1997) which puts perspective on the current EU issues.

      I just looked through some old backup cds, and I have Dreamweaver 1, Fireworks 1 both backed up in early 1998, and numerous other html tools like Ace Expert, CoffeeCup, Xara3D, CorelDraw, a cracked copy of homesite 2 from '96 - as well as fun utilities that could format a floppy as 1.72 MB or resume downloads (getright) !

      And BTW, I first started learning html by viewing the source of pages saved locally, then modifying that source to see what changed. Who today could be bothered to start from basics like that ? It would be pretty difficult to divine the purpose of all that CSS markup unless you already had a clue, which makes the net somewhat less democratic IMHO.

      One interesting thing that has come to light here, is how much old stuff I have lying around on CD. Most of it is at least 10 years old, and shows sharply the rapid advances in technology that have occurred. I just found drivers for my USR 33.6k modem, which I remember cost me over £150 back in 9x but was damn fast ! I have an external serial modem somewhere (9600) which I may test one day.

      Heh, I just found a copy of Webmaster Gold from '96, the System Requirements read as follows :
      386 processor or better
      4 Meg RAM (8 meg Recommended)
      6 Meg Disk Space
      Microsoft Compatible Mouse
      SVGA Monitor
      Microsoft Windows 3.1 or later
      WebMaster supports HTML 2.0, HTML 3.0, Netscape extensions, Inline Images, Tables, Bitmap backgrounds.
      But of course back in Shelbyville after the war, we all wore an onion in our belt, coz that was the fashion back then ....

    74. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Obviously not, no!

    75. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      How do you tell the difference between a browser initiated GET and a user entered get? Are you using some sort of time-based testing?

      I think you're cutting your market size a bit too much though, you should at least allow automation with Perl or wget.

    76. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of this is a problem that somehow has become ingrained somewhere at the business management/accounting or HR level in the corporate world. The people working as developers probably got stuck with that job after they were hired on as designers. (That's not to knock designers, I'd consider myself one. It just that the back-end part of a web-site isn't really what the bulk of a designer's education is about. Perhaps some of us can do it, but with a background in graphic arts, the work done is not going to be as efficient as someone with a background in computer science. To make a bad car-analogy: It's like hiring someone as a taxi driver - and a good one at that, but then expecting him to take on the role of fleet mechanic in addition.)

      Web designer (a.k.a. the front-end guy, a.k.a. the PhotoShop wizard): The job is to make the page look good and perhaps have an intuitive UI that is easy for the customer to use.

      Web developer (a.k.a. the back-end guy, a.k.a. the code monkey): The job is to make a page function efficiently and do what it needs to do in order to get the job done.

      More often than not, designer != developer, and developer != designer. Sometimes you'll get lucky and have somebody who can do both, but that's not usually the case. So you either end up a pretty site with craptastic and redundant code, or a very dull looking site that runs fast and is standards compliant. Or if you manage to squeeze both out of someone who is ill-suited to one aspect of website creation, don't hope to expect much in the way of deadlines.

      The real problem is convincing the bean counters in management that the two jobs are actually separate functions, such that HR should be tasked to hire the correct people for each job. This also means to quit expecting one person to be good at both in an unrealistic manner. If you can't find an all-rounder that's good at both, at least make an attempt to team up a coder with a designer or vice versa instead of being disappointed the results caused by unrealistic job expectations. (And by teaming them up, team them up! Don't put them at opposite ends of the cube farm and expect communications and the results of which to be perfect.)

    77. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      50 is a odd (as in weird) number to do so. I would say 40 for those people with the old CGA monitors who are stuck with 40x25 displays.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    78. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Spellchecker do check spelling not grammar. "do" is spelled correctly.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    79. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by macurmudgeon · · Score: 1

      Uh, Mozilla has been doing that for years. Goes all the way back to Netscape. Look at Seamonkey.

    80. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do Dreamweaver compare to Vim?

      Dreamweaver do have a spellchecker, for starters...

      That do not help when the problem is grammar.

    81. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by bXTr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      CSS is not a "flavor-of-the-hour" technology. It's a core part of absolutely any well-formed website.

      Sorry, but that's bullshit. CSS is not the least bit necessary to make a website, well-formed or otherwise. It's nice to have, if done correctly, but it's certainly not a core part of anything. If you have a website that simply does not work at all without CSS, then you have problems, my friend. Learn to code proper HTML, first, before throwing in CSS.

      --
      It's a very dark ride.
    82. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      No. I mean those who write an a real programming language, know how to program, but have their user interface on the web (mostly HTTP+HTML+CSS+JS).
      Nothing wrong with that, if done right, by a real developer / software engineer.

      Of course nobody "programs" HTML :D
      And of course most JS and PHP out there is crap. But this only shows how many of those wannabes are out there too. Not that you can't work professionally with those languages.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    83. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I did "AJAX" (using the >object< tag as a data connection between the client and the server), before the name existed. I could not find a single person out there who also did it back then. So I guess it was. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    84. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Whoops. I meant the <object> tag. Luckily I said "...it was". ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    85. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by swahebrumaf · · Score: 1

      I've never tried it, when I do web design I do it with Gimp, Vim and Firebug. And I think that combo works great!

      How do Dreamweaver compare to Vim? Is it advanced enough to not fool users to use css styled text for strong expressions?

      Recently I had to create a static website, which was only needed as a kind of prototype for a new web application. They couldn't get the functionality working, but they wanted to be able to click through pages.

      So I've set up a website with many static pages, and then DW is the best tool out there. You can move stuff around (links keep working), create templates, library items (reusable pieces of code). And the HTML is clean.

    86. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Next time anyone gets fired from a job due to their boss's incompetence, please tell a tabloid about how much money you could save them. And back it up with a slashdot/dailywtf story so the technocracy (i.e. the slashdot etc. community) will know that the (un)published story is in fact grounded in fact, or at least is valid and/or sound.

      TheDailyWTF did not exist back them. But I did do what you suggested. They did not read my links. But I got this answer: "This is not a democracy (but a business)." Yay.

      No. I don't work there anymore.

      Please do this, so that we can all have something funny to read, and so that the client has some clue that he's being ripped off by a salesman who is too stupid to even take advantage of the high price.

      To mods:No, this is not, in fact, sarcastic.

      Unfortunately, our clients were the AOL type of end-users. They would not even care to have a clue, if you had beaten them with a clue stick 24/7.
      Of course this was "our" own fault. <yoda>If building idiot-proof your site, only idiots you will get.</yoda> Sometimes nature invents even better idiots, just for you. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    87. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Chysn · · Score: 1

      Fifty characters! That's going to look terrible on my VIC-20. Please, everyone, start wrapping at 22.

      --
      --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
      -- See?
    88. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by bXTr · · Score: 1

      Using something and considering it a good solution aren't necessarily related, specially when as you say it's the only solution that exists. In fact, I remember many web devs admitting that using tables for layout *was* an ugly hack and one they regretted having to use, despite not having CSS at the time.

      Maybe, but criticizing those same web devs for using what they had to work with only shows ones ignorance, which was my point and still is.

      Cute insult at the end,

      It's an insulting language, just like its fanboys, but that's irrelevant and redundant. :)

      ...but the rest of your post is so irrelevant to the topic at hand I can only understand it if you ignored that CSS is not, in fact, a programming language nor has anything to do with the backend. CSS deals with the presentation of a webpage, which I might add *also* has no business in the webpage per se, a problem CSS seeks to solve and one that pure, vanilla HTML has in spades.

      You can make a website without CSS. I can't really put it any more plain than that. Before someone complains about plain HTML, they should learn how to use it properly.

      So go, learn CSS, use it, then come back and criticise it if you can.

      Been there, done that, cried the same tears. I have never criticized it. I said, contrary to the GGP, it wasn't necessary to create a website, and you should learn HTML, first. So, go, re-read my comments, then come back and criticize them, if you can.

      --
      It's a very dark ride.
    89. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Trying to make a distinction between "amateurs" and "developers" is all well and good, but where do you draw the line?

      I do not draw lines. I expect everything in this world to be a gradient. A relative, multi-dimensional, finely quantized gradient. (Multi-dimensional = every property of an object is a dimension.)

      So my meaning of the words, is an area in that space, with no sharp borders, and a center point based on my own relative experience. ...

      Hereâ(TM)s a new head for you. *wipes old head off the floor*

      I don't care if you can only write "Hello, world."; you're a developer.

      Yes and no. In that case, you are a very tiny bit of a developer, fitting nobodyâ(TM)s personal minimum requirements of what he meant with the word. :D

      That level must be judged individually for each person.

      This can be a problem for those starting a business without development experience. How can they hire good people? Well, let's say you were trying to build a world class soccer team. Would you hire they players by interviewing them and asking them how good they were? Or would you hire a proven coach first and get him/her to help select your team? One of these two ways works most of the time. The other doesn't. Why do we always pick the way that doesn't work?

      Yes. You have to be able do test if those who you want to work for you are competent. Who would have know that? ;)
      How do you know that a coach is proven? You get to the same problem as with the football* players: You can't know, if you don't know what to test them for. None of the two ways works. Because if you can't tell good work from bad work, you can't tell if someone is proven.
      There are too many sites out there, where all their friends/colleagues/bosses pat them on the back for doing such a nice work, when in fact they did a very poor job, and only survive because they know how to work around their shortcomings.

      I think that when you canâ(TM)t detect if their work is good, then what are you doing, creating a business that relies on that quality, in the first place? ;)

      The only way around it, would be a trustworthy authority, on whose judgments you can rely. But I learned, that you can't rely on degrees at some university. Such people tend to stop learning when they are "done", and then lag behind, until they can't find someone who still pays for their antiquated skills.
      But what you can rely on, is the knowledge of someone who does it out of love. Someone, who programs at night in his spare time, because it's so much fun to him. If that person has a long-time experience, there is virtually no chance that he isn't very competent.
      So check for two things: A) How enthusiastic is he? How much of his spare time goes into it. And B) How long has he been in that state? 10 years should be enough.

      Then do not hire that guy, but ask him to tell you what he thinks of the work of someone else. He will rip that guy's work apart, better than you could ever do it. If you are nasty, you could also let that second guy look at the fork of the first guy. And then you will know who to hire.

      But please, be thankful for the one who helped you find a competent person in the end. Pay him in some way. Nothing better than a happy trustworthy consultant with proven competence and a personal (business) relationship to you.

      ___
      * (don't use ,so**er. it's a nasty word)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    90. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Part of this is a problem that somehow has become ingrained somewhere at the business management/accounting or HR level in the corporate world.

      It's the "Peter Principle". Read the book. I had years to study it, and this is definitely exactly it.

      In other words: Those businesses grow too fast, and put people with a small skillset into higher positions with a completely different skillset, who then hire other people with an even smaller skillset skillset. And so on. Until the ex-web-catalog-link-collector becomes the head of the content and development department. With ex-history-students as html-writers (called "developers") under him. ^^

      Been there, seen that.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    91. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by bXTr · · Score: 1

      All very nice if it were true. I remember using Dreamweaver in the late '90s, and it certainly had CSS functionality. Not so much the positioning functionality we expect from CSS today, but cascading style sheet functionality none the less.

      I never said it didn't. I said CSS wasn't around when the people the GGP was vilifying made websites.

      And BTW, I first started learning html by viewing the source of pages saved locally, then modifying that source to see what changed. Who today could be bothered to start from basics like that ? It would be pretty difficult to divine the purpose of all that CSS markup unless you already had a clue, which makes the net somewhat less democratic IMHO.

      You mean the specs for HTML and CSS were unavailable? There was nothing at all on the Internet about them? Those bastards! :) Seriously, looking at code is a good start to learning anything, but you still need a reference of some kind to make sense of it all.

      --
      It's a very dark ride.
    92. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and, in my eyes, every CMS with a WYSIWYG editor, or no 100% separation of code, content, structure and design, is an "EPIC FAIL".

      Which includes every CMS I have ever seen.

      I someone know a CMS that allows content input *only* via custom XML files (to separate even the content from the RelaxNG-enforced structure), and template creation without having to learn yet another poor, limited, but still not much easier template language, please tell me / mail me.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    93. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      CSS is not a "flavor-of-the-hour" technology. It's a core part of absolutely any well-formed website.

      I heartily agree that CSS is not "flavor of the hour." I disagree, however, that it's a "core part." The whole point of css is to make it a totally superficial, interchangeable piece of the puzzle, that exists on top of well formed (X)HTML. It means you don't put the things that make the webpage look pretty in the html, that's where you embed the semantic meaning of the various pieces of the page. The CSS makes it pretty.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    94. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by shokk · · Score: 1

      Is Dreamweaver a mode in vi? I've never seen it.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    95. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How do Dreamweaver compare to Vim? Is it advanced enough to not fool users to use css styled text for strong expressions?

      Dreamweaver is a complete web page editing environment with an understanding of multiple web page scripting systems, much like vim. Unlike vim it can recognize script chunks in different formats in the same file and treat them differently, although in practice this seldom actually comes up. It also has a file manager with networking (FTP and SFTP, I think, also webdav, file stores...) and a moderately advanced templating engine.

      If you don't feel the need to have file management integrated into your editor, then you are 100% better off with the combo you have now because Dreamweaver is a pig and it doesn't accurately render any complicated layouts anyway. On the flip side, if you don't know what you're doing, Dreamweaver is a trillion times better than publisher or frontpage or something like that, because it generates generally-compliant HTML with a minimum of extraneous markup. It WILL produce needless output. I have yet to find a "WYSIWYG" web editor that doesn't.

      Finally, templating is being superseded by content management systems because they are so very simple. My personal choice at the moment fits in nicely with the subject (did not RTFA, just answering your question from the viewpoint of someone who used Dreamweaver professionally for years, versions 2 3 and 4) because I use Drupal now and I write my own HTML. You can also install fckeditor or tinymce into Drupal (possibly others also) to get a styled text editor in the browser. However I've said before and will say again that I would advocate waiting for Drupal 7 if I were not in a hurry to convert a site or put up a new one because I think it will suck much less and migrations between major versions have traditionally been sticky. I've used Drupal since 4.5 or so and upgrades have been my one bane. But anyway, if you must use a templating editor, Dreamweaver is one of the best. It has conditionals in the templating language that let you have template variants to handle submenus and the like. If you want to make a highly standards-compliant website with static pages, and have one program to edit and transfer files, Dreamweaver is probably your best commercial bet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    96. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      If you're using vim and writing html by hand, then as a web developer you don't know what you're doing.

      You talk about HTML as if it is something complex and difficult. Give me a break, if anything was meant to be done in vim it was that. And fine, maybe someone using dreamweaver can make a site faster than someone using vim, but the code will be ugly, it won't be easily maintainable, and the person using vim will have a much finer control over the elements of the site.

      I'm actually ashamed someone with such a low user-id is suggesting such a thing... Did they move you into management?

    97. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Upphew · · Score: 2, Funny

      I use a large stick to do my web design. How? Well, I go down to my basement and hit the Chinese illegal immigrant I have chained to my PC until he makes the page I want.

      You make Chinese illegal immigrant to mate with the page you want?!? Oh, make...

    98. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Verity_Crux · · Score: 1

      And exactly how would the welfare system prevent you from abusing your slaves? Was it not the welfare system that brought him to this situation where he won't work without a thorough beating first?

    99. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by ivucica · · Score: 1

      Too late, you just did it

    100. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by ivucica · · Score: 1

      In fact, most browsers which support so-called WYSIWYG textareas (e.g. TinyMCE) actually do have a Dreamweave kinda thingy built in... and Opera allows you to edit HTML and save it, displaying it on the fly. And Netscape Navigator/Mozilla Seamonkey do have Netscape/Mozilla Composer -- so browser developers actually smoke quite similar pot as you do :)

    101. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Fross · · Score: 1

      The purpose of tools is to allow the user to concentrate on the higher level tasks and not have to recreate the wheel every single time. If you think web developers should code HTML by hand, you think the web server should be written in assembler?

      Or how about people assembling cars, should they be smelting metal into individual components? Sure, they would have more control, but you have to accept that in order to create something of greater complexity, you need to rely on and trust tools to simplify the process.

      Using VIM to write HTML is a poor choice of tool not only for having to write the code by hand, but also as it lacks IDE tools that packages like Dreamweaver offer.

      Large HTML projects *can* become seriously complicated to maintain, especially with cross-browser issues, and more modern technology to support such as CSS and AJAX. To simplify it, you use a tool that you can trust and rely on, that does the donkey work for you, so you can concentrate effort onto the higher level issues.

      I've been involved in web development professionally for 13 years, and started of course with hand coding. Now I am an architect but still deal with developers on the largest scale projects, and know what tools they use, and why.

      You try to bring my userid into it, but your post shows just why you don't understand the issues here.

      1) You attempt to imply I must be in management because I don't agree with your view on technical issues. First, I'm coming from a more experienced viewpoint as I'll go into below. Second, ou'll eventually outgrow "haha management is for stupid people" when you stop reading Dilbert.

      2) You seem to believe there is some "e-peen" value with concentrating on low-level tools. The fact is that using a tool too low level for the task at hand wastes time and adds complexity.

      3) Which ties into my last point, your ignorance of high level tools, in this case at least. Dreamweaver has long produced decent quality HTML. It's not Frontpage. The code it outputs does not include unnecessary markup, is concise and simple. I would trust Dreamweaver more to produce decent code, than I would some average code monkey (especially one who uses a plain text editor). At least I know the code is going to be consistant and maintainable.

      When you realise this, your user ID will also be low, grasshopper. :)

    102. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      I used to dream of having punchcards.

      All I had were the bits punched out from the punchcards.

    103. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by yttrstein · · Score: 1

      Ahem. Lets see some of these designs. :)

    104. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by unapersson · · Score: 1

      Obtree (renamed Livelink WCM) was a bit like this. Templates were entered as a nested tree of objects with fragments of XML/HTML. Server side scripting was based around Mozilla's Spidermonkey engine with some additional libraries for database access etc.

      Users used a GUI editor with administrator defined styles that were stored as XML objects in the database.

      The main problems: it was closed source enterprise product with a price tag to match; the company that made it got taken over and now the product is at "end of life" to be replaced by something from a different bought in company; the authoring side could be buggy. It less us do a pure CSS design back in 2003 though, whereas a lot of CMS back then seemed to force you down a table design route.

    105. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by spiralx · · Score: 1

      Something like Docato then? All the content is in XML, you can define different content types using XML schemas, use XQuery to extract content in whatever format you want and then use XSLT to manage publication. You can't check a resource back in unless it validates against the appropriate schema.

    106. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be obtuse. Dreamweaver is an excellent ide for writing html and css from scratch by hand. I can run circles around any "good web designers" who design/develop/manage sites with text editors.
       
      The biggest problem with Dreamweaver is the bloat.

    107. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I "hand-write my markup" in Dreamweaver probably 10 times faster then you can. Keep feeling elite hand writing your markup(elitist word right there) in Vi or Emacs. I'll have 10 sites done to your 1.

    108. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I exclusively use Dreamweaver in it's Code View.

      Why?

      Syntax Highlighting, Auto-complete, etc.

    109. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I have to admit that ironically, I *have* been using vim for my HTML and CSS design and have recently been considering using a higher-level tool (specifically, Dreamweaver(!)) at least for the layout.

      Why? Because I was concerned that tweaking minor aspects of HTML/CSS layout in vim that way was slowing me down. I'm no snob, and if I could have a half-decent visual tool that was worth my time learning, but still let me control the HTML and CSS directly and *did not mess the underlying code up*, then I'd consider it.

      The problem is that I'm using this HTML for dynamic sites. The Dreamweaver-generated HTML/CSS would have to be clean enough to be hand-splittable into template fragments, and also not "brittle"- that is, it wouldn't be tied together in such a way that it would fall apart when I tried manipulating and reworking it outside Dreamweaver.

      But I'd also considered learning Dreamweaver because I was under the impression it was still quite standard within the industry. Yet if what the article says is true, it hasn't adapted to the Web 2.0 world. Even working in my own, unhealthily-isolated way I could have come to the conclusion that using a simple database and template for a small website made more sense than using static pages.

      And while what you say is true, and I'd be happier using high-level tools to complement vim, I get the impression that Dreamweaver isn't that tool and that it's based around yesterday's web architecture.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    110. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Is most of Dreamweaver written in some interpreted language like Javascript?

      JavaScript has had integrated regular expression support for quite a while now, ironically.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    111. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi! I'd like to let you know that you are a compensatory narcissist! Have fun failing to see it. :)

    112. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by nidarus · · Score: 1

      If you're using vim and writing html by hand, then as a web developer you don't know what you're doing. You don't know what tools you could use that up your productivity a great deal.

      Well... I use Dreamweaver myself, but I think you're exaggerating a bit. Dreamweaver is a nice HTML IDE. I like the way it auto-closes the tags, and the CSS code completion is also handy. But I sometimes don't feel like waiting for it to load, and just use Notepad++. To be honest, I don't feel like I'm missing a lot.

      I really hope though that you aren't suggesting that anyone who doesn't use its WYSIWYG mode is a dinosaur. Before CS4 it had an incredibly shitty, non-standard-compliant rendering engine that was completely useless for anything but the simplest of sites. Anyone who was only using the WYSIWYG mode before CS4 was either a complete newbie or an idiot savant.

      But even now... I haven't tried CS4, but in my experience, WYSIWYG HTML editors tend to produce really bad HTML. Bad HTML is really annoying - it's hard to CSS correctly, it's hard to make it into template (if you're working like me - making a dummy page and then replacing the dynamic parts with the real thing). And as for their CSS editing features... to be honest, it's much faster for me to write the code by hand.

      And btw, I'm not saying all of this because I'm such a hardcore geek. I'm not even a real programmer. My degree is in graphic design, and I still consider myself mainly a designer.

    113. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by nidarus · · Score: 1

      The purpose of tools is to allow the user to concentrate on the higher level tasks and not have to recreate the wheel every single time. If you think web developers should code HTML by hand, you think the web server should be written in assembler?

      Come on, KevinIsOwn's comment is arrogant and stupid (for example, he seems to think that Dreamweaver is only a WYSIWYG HTML editor), but HTML is not that hard. I've taught graphic design students how to write passable HTML in one semester. And that's including technophobic middle-aged women who didn't know how to email me the final HTML project.

      And how much slower is it to write <em> instead of clicking on the little "i" button, especially if have decent wpm?

      3) Which ties into my last point, your ignorance of high level tools, in this case at least. Dreamweaver has long produced decent quality HTML. It's not Frontpage. The code it outputs does not include unnecessary markup, is concise and simple. I would trust Dreamweaver more to produce decent code, than I would some average code monkey (especially one who uses a plain text editor). At least I know the code is going to be consistant and maintainable.

      I've used Dreamweaver, up to CS3, and that was not my experience. The HTML is not insanely bad, like Frontpage's, but it's not incredibly reliable or consistent. When my students use Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG mode, it's incredibly easy to spot (if only because it's littered with .style1, .style2 etc), and they're writing really trivial pages.

      Also, as I've said in another comment - if you were using any version before CS4, you simply couldn't expect the "WYSIWYG editor" version to look anything like the final result. It choked on anything but trivial CSS. Honestly, it made IE6 look good in comparison. So, at least for me, it was completely useless in that regard.

      Now, I haven't tried CS4 yet, and it might produce perfect HTML, and its rendering engine is certainly much better, but even so... who cares? HTML is not what takes most of the time anyway. In any modern CSS-based design, CSS is >90% of the work, and Dreamweaver doesn't have a real time-saving solution for it.

    114. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by nidarus · · Score: 1

      I have to admit that ironically, I *have* been using vim for my HTML and CSS design and have recently been considering using a higher-level tool (specifically, Dreamweaver(!)) at least for the layout.

      I'll tell you from my experience as a Dreamweaver user - Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG mode is certainly better than Frontpage's, or any other antiquated "WYSIWYG" HTML editor, but it's not that great. The HTML it produces is OK, but it still inserts random shit, so you have to clean it up a bit.

      As for CSS... unless you're really into absolute-positioned elements, it doesn't really help in that regard. I mean, it has a CSS dialog, and a CSS-tree view... but it's not really better than good 'ole text-editor + Firebug.

      And while what you say is true, and I'd be happier using high-level tools to complement vim, I get the impression that Dreamweaver isn't that tool and that it's based around yesterday's web architecture.

      Nah, it's a very nice HTML/CSS IDE, really. As long as you stay clear from its WYSIWYG mode, it's pretty handy. But if you ask me, unless you're getting it for free with one of Adobe's suites, it's not worth the money.

    115. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by nidarus · · Score: 1

      There are a zillion "brochure" web sites out there, and not one of those web sites requires knowledge of CSS/HTML, OOP, MVC, DB, or design patterns.

      Unless you're making table-based designs or flash brochures (bleh), knowing CSS is essential for making any real brochure site. There's simply no tool (including Dreamweaver) for creating non-trivial CSS-based designs without actually knowing some CSS and HTML.

      As for OOP, MVC, design patterns, etc, etc - I agree with you, that's complete bullshit.

    116. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      if you wish to spend five times as long designing a web page than maybe gimp and vi is good for you. For those who need a faster workflow Dreamweaver is wonderful. Gimp is really inadequate and lacks many of the important features one needs. Its not as convenient. If you are making little personal webpages for yourself your vi is okay. But for big time commercial development when you have deadlines, and time is money, dreamweaver streamlines the process. Sure, I know HTML, Javascript, CSS, like the back of my hand. yet do everything in these languages directly would just waste more of time. To design the graphics that meets todays high standards of quality that customers expect and to do it in timely manner you really need good quality graphics packages. Why waste my time trying to hand edit code when a GUI is faster. This is especially true with commercial websites. Visual elements make a huge impact on customers and a well designed website does create customer confidence, making a company look more reliable, larger, etc. Most people like the eye candy and the main reason dreamweaver and flash do so well is because of that, and and mainline webstandards have failed to keep up the pace with flash.

    117. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Draek · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but criticizing those same web devs for using what they had to work with only shows ones ignorance, which was my point and still is.

      Unless CSS didn't exist by the time the last couple versions of Dreamweaver were written, the GGP didn't do that, only the fact that Dreamweaver still uses them. A perfectly fair criticism if you ask me.

      You can make a website without CSS. I can't really put it any more plain than that. Before someone complains about plain HTML, they should learn how to use it properly.

      I do, thank you very much. And using tables for layout most definitely does *not* qualify as "using it properly", so CSS it is.

      Been there, done that, cried the same tears. I have never criticized it. I said, contrary to the GGP, it wasn't necessary to create a website, and you should learn HTML, first. So, go, re-read my comments, then come back and criticize them, if you can.

      See above. Arguing that theoretically it isn't needed is a fool's errand, *nothing* is needed for any and all webpages, except perhaps a markup language of sorts which can but mustn't necessarily be HTML itself. Yet the best way to learn how to create a webpage *is* learning HTML+CSS first, because most of the other markup languages are at least inspired by HTML, and learning CSS alongside prevents the developer from being tempted to use ugly HTML hacks to get the design he wants.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    118. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by eihab · · Score: 1

      Aha! So _you_ must be the one who created Telnet Star Wars!!

      (Reference: telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl)
      (Also on http at http://www.asciimation.co.nz/)

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    119. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by eihab · · Score: 1

      Have you tried the web developer extension for firefox?

      Dude, Firebug, Firebug and Firebug!

      Not only does it allow you to modify CSS/HTML on the fly, its JavaScript debugging features are priceless. By far the BEST web development tool and the reason I'm never switching away from Firefox.

      P.S.: I still have web developer because I'm still hooked on CTRL+SHIFT+A and CTRL+SHIFT+S (validate page, disable CSS respectively).

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    120. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a hunch, but perhaps...
      Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate

    121. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOP and MVC are overhyped. I've yet to see a good demonstration of them being useful for actual applications; not animal, shape, and device driver examples found in "OOP Cures Cancer in 7 Days" books.
           

    122. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      But that's what large companies seem want; it's not just developers being "bad". I tried creating some reusable functions in one large developer group for a contract and the architects told me that kind of code was hard to maintain and insisted I stop, having me make dozens of copies with slight variations instead of one function with parameters.

      Copy-and-past code may be poor factoring, but it is predictable from the their perspective. Abstraction and meta-programming requires hiring a more skilled person and they don't know how to recruit such people.

      Thus, they use the "Chinese army" approach. It may be expensive, but at least it's a known quantity to the managers. Big companies hate surprises, both good and bad surprises.

      I avoid those kind of companies if I can.
         

    123. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The author is generally right in my opinion. I've seen horrible practices in big companies. Software development is sort of comparable to automobile repair: if you don't know enough about cars, you WILL get ripped off.

      I've concluded that building good, maintainable software's reward is personal satisfaction, and not money. If you want money, play their game. If you want peace of mind, code right and stop caring about not making the top bucks that top bullshitters and game players can. Some things are more important than money.

      When I'm dying in my older years, I want the comfort of leaving this world knowing my code ain't crap[1]. The size of my house or having a new car won't matter then. Think of it as the mom-ambulance-clean-underwear cliche, but for coders.

      [1] No, it's not perfect, but compared to what's out there, on average it's better crafted using experience and thought.
         

    124. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I`m using ed and lynx. Why waste cycles of my superior machine on gui.

    125. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Fross · · Score: 1

      Why? Because I was concerned that tweaking minor aspects of HTML/CSS layout in vim that way was slowing me down. I'm no snob, and if I could have a half-decent visual tool that was worth my time learning, but still let me control the HTML and CSS directly and *did not mess the underlying code up*, then I'd consider it.

      I would say Dreamweaver's code is maintainable and consistant with itself - if you create something with Dreamweaver and then go back later to amend it, it does sensible things with the code. If you're asking it to start with a different set of code rather than a blank canvas, it may not behave so well. I'd definitely try it before relying on it.

      But I'd also considered learning Dreamweaver because I was under the impression it was still quite standard within the industry. Yet if what the article says is true, it hasn't adapted to the Web 2.0 world. Even working in my own, unhealthily-isolated way I could have come to the conclusion that using a simple database and template for a small website made more sense than using static pages.

      And while what you say is true, and I'd be happier using high-level tools to complement vim, I get the impression that Dreamweaver isn't that tool and that it's based around yesterday's web architecture.

      Absolutely correct on all accounts. It was great for a specific context, but that has now of course changed.

      Dreamweaver was the de-facto standard WYSIWYG html editor and is actually pretty good. When all you had to worry about was template-driven webserver based pages, with css tagged on as an afterthought, it was great. That obviously is not the case anymore - question is can Dreamweaver adapt to become part of the new approach and fit in with CMS-driven engines.

    126. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Then you obviously haven't looked at much application code lately. I saw OOP being used successfully and heavily in C kernels almost two decades ago. Its use has only increased since then, and just about every major application uses at least some of its concepts, if not using them widely. All major GUI frameworks are using MVC now, including the web ones.

    127. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by ericski · · Score: 1

      As an employee for a major printer manufacturer, I highly recommend everyone print out your webpages. Please. Our profit margins are depending on you.

    128. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Yet you have no concepts of paragraphs whatsoever, even if it would only have taken a <p> and </p> to structure your comment. (XHTML compliant, other standards are more lax)

      You have as such made my point: a dreamweaver user depends on the tool not on the knowlegde of the markup language.

    129. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      WTH? OOP in C? Where? does struct do something I don't know about? Seriously, tell me.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    130. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      I am not using Vim to create/write HTML and CSS. I am not using Dreamweaver either. I use a nice text editor like Geany or NotepadPlus (both open source projects btw) to write HMTL and CSS. Not because it is faster than doing it in Dreamweaver, it's actually slower. But because I enjoy it better like this. I have both, more choices and more control over what I am doing.

    131. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      C++ is just a language that has a few built in keywords that make OOP quicker to type. Most early C++ compilers converted their code to C, and all compilers eventually convert to machine code, which has no notion of OOP. OO is a method of programming (hence the OO*P*), not a language. Essentially, a C++ class is just a C structure, plus related functions that manipulate that structure. In C, the simplest equivalent is something like typedef struct _X {...} X; X* X_create() {..} void X_destroy(X* ptr) {...} void compare_X(X*), etc. For a better example of this, you could look at the C-based GTK+ library, and compare it with Vala's C#-like language, which uses that same library, translating the C# stuff into plain old C. Or just run your C++ compiler with a simple test class, and give it (your compiler) the right arguments to generate C code or assembly code.

    132. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I know that bit about OOP in C++, though it seems kinda kludgy. Wouldn't it be a bit more elegant to add support for first-class (anonymous) functions, and then just use regular structs? Besides, that opens the door to metaprogramming, reflection, and more flexible evaluation strategies. A regular function is just a non-global stuct with anonymous (bound to a variable) function forming a closure, which can be invoked by a variable change (dataflow programming concept), or by creating a Schrödinger's cat data type which initializes when externally evaluated, giving lazy evaluation. Template programming seems like macros + void pointers, so I don't know what the big whoop is. Object composition, and by extension - aspect oriented programming can be done by simply nesting structs and setting up the instance name to point to the names of all the element, whereas method call resolution can be done at compile time. I think that also qualifies as multiple inheritance. Virtual methods and inheritance are semantically identical to attribute-oriented programming, which in turn can be implemented by templates with data type parameters set by the semantics of instantiation, i.e. depending on how the internal to the stuct (remember, all objects are stuct instances) attribute variable is set, identically named methods (anonymous functions) will be called by different preference.

      And that's how you make C into a multi-paradigm language. ;)

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    133. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I never really got the need for "anonymous" functions. C and similar languages support using pointers to functions, so you can just do something like map(my_func, array). With C++ and python etc., you can create classes that have callable instances (in python, callable classes too, afaik), and with instances that have private data, and so they do become "non-global structs with anonymous functions" if you pass around an instance of a module-scoped callable class. I've never really looked into AOP, but yeah, my impression is that it doesn't sound very new, once you ignore the buzzwords. Template programming is essentially a way to make macros and void pointers resolvable at compile time, rather than runtime. You can pass around a void pointer, but somewhere, you need to do lots of conditional logic based on type, or just treat them like a known, lowest-common-denominator type. If attribute-oriented programming (which I've never heard of) is similar to RDF triplets etc., then yes, you could do that instead of virtual methods/inheritance, but it would be relatively slow looking up those attribs for non-trivial cases.

      Essentially, it all boils down to the same machine code, and any turing-complete language can be used in one way or another. For me, it's all about a) the elegance of expression; b) the performance; and c) the runtime overhead; d) the run-time dependencies in strictly that order, bearing in mind that stuff with licensing/patent issues (like CLR) is just out of the question.

    134. Re:Is Dreamweaver good? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Cheers, brother!

      What I meant to say is, being a high-level language, doesn't mean you have to lose power. Or complicate things more than necessary. My problem with C++ is that they plain added features, and not provisions for such, yielding a not-so-good implementation. Though, this might be the physicist in me showing through (I'm in high-school, BTW), but C(++) could take a couple of metric shit tons of hints from Fortran and Ada. That, or I'm getting real lazy. To quote Mark Twain - "Ah, but I repeat myself.".

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  4. Content Management System is not a design program by Hottie+Parms · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Drupal et al make life a whole lot easier when it comes to updating a website and adding content. But what about the design?

    Unless you want to stick to the default Drupal (or insert CMS here) themes, you'll probably want to design your own CMS template so people get a unique feel for your website. You'll still need to fall back on your classic static web-design skills using programs like Dreamweaver (or notepad).

    Dreamweaver isn't dying, it's just falling into a more specialized category now. If you just used Dreamweaver as a way to update content, then you were really failing to use the program to it's full potential.

  5. No design needed by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's true, most people who make sites in Drupal, Wordpress, etc. clearly didn't spend more than 10 minutes on the design.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:No design needed by f1vlad · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not always true, here is proof.

      --
      o_O
  6. Dreamweaver ain't going anywhere. by bezking · · Score: 1

    So besides the obvious open-sourceness, what distinguishes Dreamweaver from Eclipse PDT for PHP? If dreamweaver goes, why not Eclipse? While it is unlikely but not impossible that some SAAS package will replace the need for custom software, but who will develop the SAAS software? Hmmmmmmm.....

  7. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Netcraft confirm it?

  8. Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by Shados · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even Microsoft already did what had to be done for that. Integrate the tools with the content management system, duh!

    Sharepoint Designer is pretty much Expression Web made to modify Sharepoint's dynamically generated pages. Point Sharepoint Designer to a Sharepoint site where you have required permissions, and have fun. All the power of a content management system, all the power of design and web development tool, all at the same place.

    Adobe and Dreamweaver are in an even better position for this. They could work with the open source community, and various vendors (like Alfresco), and make Dreamweaver work the same way Sharepoint Designer works, but across a variety of content management system. The idea of something like Drupal and Alfresco with Dreamweaver having the same kind of integration as MOSS and Sharepoint Designer is quite exciting, in my opinion, and has far more potential.

    1. Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by risk+one · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Point Sharepoint Designer to a Sharepoint site where you have required permissions, and have fun.

      Fun? You must be joking. I've worked a lot with Sharepoint Designer and it's the most ungodly abomination of a software package I've ever had to touch. It makes the rest of Microsoft's applications look like they were made by NASA.

      The whole of Sharepoint is gargantuan mess, from the half implemented API to the ridiculous, overcomplicated, undocumented deployment procedures (restarting the webserver every time you change code, really?), to the insane use of tables in the HTML (have a look at the html on an average system page, and see if your mind can deal with five or six tables wrapped around every single design element).

      Sharepoint Designer is where you can really see Sharepoint for what it is. It has all these features that sound very nice, until you try to save an .aspx page and it replicates your previous change somewhere rather than the one you were currently checking in. You think "huh that's weird", delete, the extra code, rewrite the code you wanted to add, and check in again, and now the previous change appears three times. In the end the only solution is to delete the page and the associated content types from the site and create it again (and any pages that used it). That's the sort of wonderful behavior you can expect from Sharepoint Designer.

      I've never used the WYSIWYG editor because, frankly, I'm scared.

    2. Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by Shados · · Score: 1

      restarting the webserver every time you change code, really?

      Err, no, you don't.

    3. Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by risk+one · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about web parts.

    4. Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by Shados · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't matter. The most you'll ever need to do is recycle the application pool, and users won't even notice when you do aside for a slight lag if you don't have a load balancer.

    5. Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sharepoint Designer is pretty much Expression Web made to modify Sharepoint's dynamically generated pages. Point Sharepoint Designer to a Sharepoint site where you have required permissions, and have fun. All the power of a content management system, all the power of design and web development tool, all at the same place.

      There are only two problems with that. One is that SP Designer is slow, buggy, and encourages nasty practices (such as writing inline ASP.NET code - it allows that, but not the code-behind model). Another is that when you need SharePoint to do something that it doesn't do out of the box, you have to deal with its extensibility mechanisms - and at that point you suddenly discover how crappy they actually are, and how scarce documentation is (half the articles for SP classes on MSDN don't even have method descriptions, just signatures!). To date, SharePoint development is probably the worst in Microsoft ecosystem - lacking docs, very bad tooling (the official VS integration plugin is a joke... even community made ones are better), and tons and tons of bugs.

      Yes, I was a SharePoint developer for some (gladly, brief) period of time in my life. No more and never again. My wife still has to deal with that monster, though, so still get to hear it all pretty much every day.

    6. Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by Bazouel · · Score: 1

      People designing sites in SharePoint use the Visual Studio extensions, not SP Designer!

      SharePoint Designer is based on FrontPage, *not* Expression Web. As such, it is one of the most obtrusive obnoxious web site designer. It will happily reformat your html, css and what not, even making it not work while doing so.

      --
      Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
    7. Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by Shados · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. It was just an example of what CAN be done. If you feel Sharepoint and Sharepoint designer sucks, thats fine. The idea behind them is still good though. A designer/IDE tool that can integrate and modify a live content management system's logical autogenerated pages and extensions, without having to touch physical files, and having something like that of enterprise caliber integrated with the various awesome open source CMSs out there would be ideal.

    8. Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution by MrPhilby · · Score: 1

      How about design a site structure and layout in Dreamweaver and then manage content with Adobe Contribute. Works for me.

  9. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by greengreed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't forget Drupal modules. Themes and modules don't magically appear from the void, somebody writes them, and this requires an editor.

  10. Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I doing this right? The whole comparing 2 different things?

    1. Re:Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! by uniquename72 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, the reasons for using each are very different. If your site is dynamic, Drupal is great. If your site is static, Dreamweaver is a really good tool. While it may seem that more and more sites are becoming dynamic, I'd argue that there are still -- and will always remain -- a very large number of static sites cared for by single developers that have no need of a CMS.

      I know it's popular here to bash wysiwig editors (just write the code, dammit!), but Dreamweaver has gotten MUCH better since version 4.

      It's code is good, it works well with Flash, CSS and JavaScript. And if you're a designer, the Photoshop integration is pretty fantastic. Personally, I use Dreamweaver primarily for the site management tools, which are also very good.

      If you haven't used DW in the past 4 years, then you haven't used DW.

    2. Re:Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not even a static/dynamic difference. Dreamweaver is a website design tool, Drupal is a website management tool. A smart person would use both; design the look & feel with Dreamweaver, then convert the design into a Drupal template.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I use dreamweaver and it is fully competent.

      I see no need to use the wysiwyg elements in dreamweaver or in any other ide.

      Just type out your code.

    4. Re:Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By suggesting that a smart person would use Dreamweaver, you have streched the very limits of credulity. Have you seen the code generated by Dreamweaver? That's why people are willing to believe an article celebrating its demise, even if it's nonsensical.

    5. Re:Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! by SpecBear · · Score: 1

      Slashdot Editorializing: UR DOIN IT WR -- Oh wait, my bad. Ur doin it rite.

  11. The concept is more generic by icepick72 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Veryu misleading title. The story isn't about Dreamweaver but the dying of static HTML editing tools of any kind, contrasting them to the changing web. The web is becoming more dynamic. Some HTML editing tools are very static. Therein lies the problem for the old tools.

    1. Re:The concept is more generic by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed.

      The great majority of what I do are PHP based homegrown CMS type sites. I use Dreamweaver to manage the code, I use Photoshop and Illustrator for the graphics, and I use Firebug to figure out the CSS.

      I don't use Dreamweaver to it's fullest potential because I no longer do a lot of static HTML stuff, but I still find Dreamweaver useful for PHP, JavaScript and CSS coding, probably because I've been using it for 6 years.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    2. Re:The concept is more generic by risk+one · · Score: 1

      And to think, if only he'd written this article ten years ago, he would have actually made a fairly obvious, marginally relevant point. It's just unfair is what it is.

    3. Re:The concept is more generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'm a relic..

      Personally, I consider the filesystem itself to be the best "content manager" available (when combined with CVS). Easy, flexible and very light-weight.

      My "recipe" is to create a site specific header, footer an PHP class that has functions for that site, I then include it in a file, set a few properties (title and what-not) walla, new web page. Check it over, then when I want to go live, do a cvs commit and a cvs update.

      I've tried to comprehend the appeal of a content manager, but really, my current "system" is so easy and allows me to examine a page on a test box before going "live", plus having revision control is just so easy, simple and it works with most anything else.. I really can't see why people would want a fancy "content manager".

  12. Long Live DruPaul? by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's the drag queen singer/performance artist who's working on a reality show, right?

    1. Re:Long Live DruPaul? by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but it's coded in PHP. Witness the drama as straight tables go head-to-head with the polyamorous CSS shapeshifters, and a love-triangle forms when sexy interloper Ajax is suddenly introduced to the show.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  13. Drupal.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And here I thought Drupal was a cross-dresser from the early '90s. Boy, I was *way* off.

  14. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by f1vlad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, developer has utmost freedom to redesign theme from scratch or mod currently available ones, here are some websites done in drupal, check it out:

    • http://www.warnerbrosrecords.com/
    • http://change.gov/
    • http://community.michaeljackson.com/
    • http://ketnet.be/
    • http://ngycp.org

    more here and here.

    I completely agree however, drupal != dreamweaver.

    --
    o_O
  15. First the Concept, then the Security by cmholm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The parent is correct, this is a static vs. dynamic web transition. I suppose "DREAMWEAVER is DEAD" is catchier.

    Now, if we can just get ahead of the game on plugging those CMS security holes.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  16. still relevant to moms everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dreamweaver will always have a place next to microsoft word for helping moms everywhere create hideous, 1990's-era web pages.

    Posted anonymously because I have one of those moms, and I'd hate to break her heart. She things her pages are awesome.

    1. Re:still relevant to moms everywhere by drx · · Score: 1

      Would you mind to share this web site's URL with us? I love private pages becaucse this is what the web was really made for. Not these gradient and dropshadow ridden e-commerce crappiles and CMS hells that cannot even generate reasonable navigation.

  17. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's true, and Dreamweaver's autocomplete is fantastic.

    I don't think there is much place for the GUI in template design, but the text editor in Dreamweaver is worth the money if you are a designer at a lower skill level.

    Considering one would need the other apps in the suite, keeping Dreamweaver will be a perk.

    Adobe should focus on making it a full fledged AMP (and others really) testing environment and it would be potent.

    Easy local testing, their sitemanager to sync with remote, fantastic text editor, and maybe even some integration for template previewing (maybe they do?). I personally only use it to help be remember the names of various CSS properties and what they can be set too, but there is definitely potential to make designers more comfortable with interfacing with the server, as they have tied to do from the start (and I hate).

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  18. Good riddance. by jonadab · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've seen some of the HTML these tools (Frontweaver, Dreampage, HotMetal, etc) produce, and I Do Not Want It.

    I use Emacs and w3schools, and my HTML is clean, scalable, efficient, reasonably accessible, and very maintainable, and honestly I don't spend that much time on it. HTML is, fundamentally, very easy, once you know what you're doing.

    In terms of keeping all the pages on a site updated with side-wide changes, I mostly use a combination of keyboard macros, custom elisp, Perl, regular expressions, chewing gum, and bailing wire. But it works, and it works the way I *want* it to work.

    As far as Drupal, though, I thought that was a CMS. Do people really try to use it as an HTML editor? Ugh.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    1. Re:Good riddance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do people really try to use it as an HTML editor?

      The point is that once you've got the template set up (or downloaded a theme or whatever), you DON'T use an html editor anymore. You type your content into your little box and hit the save button.

      Or did you use Dreamweaver to write your comment here?

    2. Re:Good riddance. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Didn't these programs used to produce Spaghetti with &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp?

      I'm on the next tree over from you, except I'm going even more basic with notepad, because I never got around to looking at emacs etc.

      What is this "dynamic content" anyway? Some page with 7 comments of "nice page lulz"? Skip that, it offends my sense of style.

      I'm not sure I get this whole "CMS" thing, since I have an 80-page design template. I only have about 7 of the max 40ish articles written anyway. (And "Article" is not the 4 paragraph junk we keep seeing here festooned with ads...)

      I rather think some of the New Coke of the web should die out and let people go back to writing Classic articles. As an example (beyond my humble powers!) here is Mark Russinovich's blog.

      http://blogs.technet.com/MarkRussinovich/

      THAT's content.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    3. Re:Good riddance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is the classic software tools for a programmer concerned with job security. Cobble together some text mode software designed for the age of teletypes and brag about how clever you are to make it work (sometimes). These are the first resumes I toss when they cross my desk.

    4. Re:Good riddance. by maxume · · Score: 1

      The content on that site is dynamically inserted into a template and the site has commenting features...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Good riddance. by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Content with a lot of needless markup ;)

    6. Re:Good riddance. by rHBa · · Score: 1

      But would you use Dreamweaver to build a template for these out of the box CMSs?

      I guess, given the 'html' produced by them, you might as well. Why polish a turd...

    7. Re:Good riddance. by nidarus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've seen some of the HTML these tools (Frontweaver, Dreampage, HotMetal, etc) produce, and I Do Not Want It.

      Nobody's forcing you to use their WYSIWYG view - if I see any WYSIWYG HTML editor, I know that it's going to produce spaghetti HTML.

      However, Dreamweaver is also a very nice HTML/CSS IDE, with code-completion, one-button validation/cross-browser issue reporting, etc etc.

      Now, you might ask, why do you need a $400 HTML IDE, when there are many available for free? Well, the simple answer is if you want Photshop, Illustrator and Flash, you have to buy an Adobe suite, and it comes bundled with Dreamweaver.

      In terms of keeping all the pages on a site updated with side-wide changes, I mostly use a combination of keyboard macros, custom elisp, Perl, regular expressions, chewing gum, and bailing wire. But it works, and it works the way I *want* it to work.

      It's only human (or rather, Geek), to try and build everything on your own. And I agree, web sites are not inherently a complex task. But it's a boring, repetitive task, with lots of security/performance gotchas.

      If you make a lot of web sites (even >1 per year), you should really try Drupal. It saves lots of time, and it's really extensible/customizable - it's kinda like the Emacs of the CMS world.

      As far as Drupal, though, I thought that was a CMS. Do people really try to use it as an HTML editor? Ugh.

      Of course not. It's not "Ugh", it's just impossible. Drupal doesn't come with any WYSIWYG HTML editors.

      The point of the article is that since pages are generated using server side technologies (which is, they claim, a revolutionary Web 2.0 idea), you don't need to write your own HTML evar again!!!11one

      Usually, I would've said RTFA, but in this case, the FA is clueless horseshit with a trollish title.

    8. Re:Good riddance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Douche

  19. this is preposterous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big surprise, its easier to manage a large site with a CMS rather than using global find and replace. Sites have been modular for years, does no one remember server side includes? It has nothing to do with Dreamweaver the application, which is a fine editor. Besides there are plenty of sites that don't need dynamic content, RSS feeds, comments and blogs, sometimes you just need to put out clear and concise information on a well designed page. Why wouldn't you use Dreamweaver for that?

  20. Not really arguing, but... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the blog post:

    The bottom line is that the old model of the central webmaster hand-spinning every page of every website and, worse, manually adding the navigation necessary to help users find it, just isnâ(TM)t scalable or viable. The only feasible course for the future is for content to be posted by the content contributor, whether thatâ(TM)s the site owner or site visitors, and for the best possible navigation to be constructed around that content on the fly.

    This particular paragraph leads me to think the author has never actually used Dreamweaver - he certainly doesn't even understand the fundamental concept of "templates". I mean, who is manually adding navigation to a large site on a page by page basis?

    Thing is, there are a lot of circumstances where "Web 2.0", in the limited sense the author seems to understand (that is, end-users providing added content), doesn't do much for you. There are only a few places on your typical corporate or government web site, for example, where this would make sense. Certainly there are specific applications where this would be handy; but they're fairly narrow and can be handled well by adding some wiki software alongside the "mainstream" website.

    Now the tools of Web 2.0 - e.g. dynamic, javascript-driven pages with sql backends - are a different matter. But really Dreamweaver-style templating works just fine with those, IMHO, to the degree one is going to use any tool to make those pages anyway (meaning there's a significant amount of hand-coding happening with the page-specific content).

    Personally speaking, I've found Dreamweaver templates (that I've put together) very handy when combined with Contribute. Really the templating is mostly what I use it for; both for allowing other staff to easily maintain content and letting me easily push section-wide and/or site-wide changes to our several-thousand-page web site (templates can be nested, which is quite handy). I know I'm only using a fairly restricted subset of what all Dreamweaver can do; but it does that pretty darn well. Certainly other software can also do this - but I haven't seen anything that works quite as well in all regards.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Not really arguing, but... by nidarus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thing is, there are a lot of circumstances where "Web 2.0", in the limited sense the author seems to understand (that is, end-users providing added content), doesn't do much for you.

      Actually, the author seems to think that very idea of creating pages dynamically is a Web 2.0 concept:

      In the relatively near future every website will be a dynamically-generated web application and all of today's sites built on multiple static pages will be ripped out and replaced.

      Somebody should tell him that all of today's sites are already dynamically-generated, and that CGI is a Web 1.0 concept.

    2. Re:Not really arguing, but... by MrPhilby · · Score: 1

      Dreamweaver templates with Contribute here too. Not too worried about spaghetti either when the cubic metre of Bolognese Java and Flash kinda make it insignificant, especially on Broadband connections.

  21. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by JCSoRocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, this entire thing just sounds like FUD. Granted CMS's are the way to go for content updates but but unless you're a mom and pop shop you don't want to stick with a template... and that means hiring a designer... and that means using design tools.

    CMS is just a fancy way of saying, "Keep the secretaries out of the friggin' HTML because they always screw it up." Handing Dreamweaver over to someone with no experience was always a joke.

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  22. Dreamweaver code sucks by basementman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real problem is dreamweaver code sucks compared to anything a decent programmer can just type out in notepad. The question becomes, would you rather use an open source CMS, code your own theme and get good code. Or would rather blow $400 on a piece of software that's going to spew out something totally unusable. Investing a little bit of time learning how to do css goes a long way.

    1. Re:Dreamweaver code sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe the question becomes: Would you rather pay $400 once on a piece of software and learn how to use it well, or would you like to hire someone to do that for you, repeatedly?

    2. Re:Dreamweaver code sucks by jsmiith · · Score: 1

      Seriously, have you used Dreamweaver? dreamweaver is far from one of those point-and-click WYSIWYG website creators of the 90s. I would wager that you would not be able to tell the difference from something created in dreamweaver and something created in, say, emacs.(provided, of course, that the creator is proficient in html+css)

  23. wysiwyg was always destined to die by jperl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the best html/css editor is any editor with syntax highlighting used in combination with brain.

    1. Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die by Shados · · Score: 1

      Of course, wysiwyg is just one of Dreamweaver's features, and I dont think its the most used among professionals. I haven't used it in a long time, but back then we used it for workflow integration, script debugging, code analysis (like checking broken links and quickly testing for code correctness), template generations, plugins, etc.

      The wysiwyg was only used a "real time semi-preview", and it was okay-ish at that.

    2. Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dreamweaver always had a very powerful HTML/CSS code editing mode. All people that I knew who used it professionally always worked in that mode, and only occasionally used the "WYSIWYG" mode as a quick preview.

    3. Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die by meep116 · · Score: 1

      Dreamweaver has a very good editor with syntax highlighting. Just because it can do WYSIWYG with it doesn't mean it can only do WYSIWYG editing.

    4. Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure of that. I expect a resurgence of WYSIWYG-like tools sooner or latter, but unlike the current tools, they'd be aimed at people who already know the underlying technology and will also be aimed more at creating CSS for templates. I do all my CSS by hand, but it would be nice not to have to switch between my text editor and browser all the time for what really is a graphical job.

    5. Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Problem I see if you just need a good editor and code insight anything decent can do it. I use for instance intellij for coding the pages and its code insight features and refactoring do the job more than perfectly...
      Wyiwyg is out of the question, but having all the css attributes, being able to refactor css and having graphical tools for color selection within css etc... can go miles!

    6. Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brain cannot always be assumed.

  24. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by lavaface · · Score: 0
    Really, the best way is with a text editor. Dreamweaver is a pretty good program but it can't compete with a basic text editor (with tabs and the ability to save to FTP.) Most of the work is tweaking the CSS, although you will probably need to modify some other PHP files if you plan on doing extensive changes. With Firebug you can modify CSS and see the changes in real time. There are so many different styles of themes that you can save yourself a lot of work modifying an existing setup you like (three column, magazine, corporate, 2.0ish, etc.) BTW, this works for Wordpress too.

    As far as intially designing mockups of what you want the site to look like, that's what Photoshop is for ;) Been doing this for years and I couldn't agree more.

  25. What a spam article! by purpleraison · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, it's true we web-designers can (and generally) do use simple code editors to write our pages, templates and CSS stylesheets; the fact is that there is an ever-growing population of people who want to make their own website, not just pre-compiled garbage templates that Drupal users install- but real personal templates made by the site owners themselves... in order to do that they need a good editor that HELPS them- Dreamweaver does that.

    Also, seriously, WTF does Drupal have to do with it? Sure, I'm not knocking Drupal I've used it on some projects, but it has nothing to do with the REAL tools required to do a job (mainly a brain, fingers, and motivation).

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
  26. Code Editor by allscan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Lets not forget that Dreamweaver does more than WYSIWYG sites, it has a pretty decent code editor in it with built in libraries for JS, .NET, ColdFusion, HTML, JSP, PHP, ActionScript, Java, and others. I've actually used it quite extensively for straight code as it does a decent job of highlighting tags and the project organization is pretty nice too.

  27. Good. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Dreamweaver Is Dying

    As Richter said in Total Recall: "About damn time."

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Good. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Dreamweaver Is Dying

      As Richter said in Total Recall: "About damn time."

      Andy Richter was in Total Recall?

      Man, I gotta watch that movie again...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    2. Re:Good. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Dreamweaver Is Dying

      As Richter said in Total Recall: "About damn time."

      Andy Richter was in Total Recall?

      Man, I gotta watch that movie again...

      Well, I've noticed that in a certain light from just the right angle, Michael Ironside is a dead ringer for Andy Richter.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  28. Of course it's dying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no one wants to pay $200+ for it.

    1. Re:Of course it's dying... by lilfields · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly why Photoshop is dying too...no, wait

  29. I hand code by MazzThePianoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have opened up Dreamweaver a few times but prefer doing things by hand in Notepad++. There are plenty of free and open bulletproof css templates for getting the basic layout of any site started and from there diving into your own code helps you better understand what you are doing. I am sure Dreamweaver has its own crowd but between a good CMS and hand coding I have never felt behind the curve.

    --
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Franklin
    1. Re:I hand code by kakrofoon · · Score: 1

      Tools help, and code generators make things go faster, but there is only one code tool that can handle everything properly: Greymatter, MK 1

    2. Re:I hand code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>I have opened up Dreamweaver a few times but prefer doing things by hand in Notepad++.

      Try Geany. u will love it.
      http://www.geany.org/

  30. No business messing with the web? Bite Me by gadlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm just saying dude, that nobody died and made you Emperor of the Internet so you know, we're all perfectly able to mess around and build our own websites even without your permission. And even without knowing everything there is to know about CSS and HTML. Farkknocker.

    --
    Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
    1. Re:No business messing with the web? Bite Me by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Er, no, seriously, web "devs" who have no clue about accessibility have no business doing webdesign, GP is right on that one.

    2. Re:No business messing with the web? Bite Me by Draek · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. That's the reason we still have the phrase "This website requires IE6 or above" floating around.

      The problem is that so few of you realize that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    3. Re:No business messing with the web? Bite Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just saying dude, that nobody died and made you Emperor of the Internet so you know, we're all perfectly able to mess around and build our own websites even without your permission. And even without knowing everything there is to know about CSS and HTML. Farkknocker.

      Oh crap. The Elders are not going to like this.

    4. Re:No business messing with the web? Bite Me by chickens · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying dude, that nobody died and made you Emperor of the Internet

      Indeed, David Hasselhoff is still very much alive last I checked.

      (go here if you need this explained)

  31. Hang in there, Dreamweaver by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Come on, Dreamweaver, you've never given up on anything in your life! There still may be some time... Everything's going to be OK. Say it with me: "I believe we can reach the morning light".

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  32. Dreamweaver's a terrible design program too. by weston · · Score: 1

    Dreamweaver was never a good *design* tool, and I don't know how it ever got sold as one -- maybe the same way we got that horrible name "web designer" for client-side HTML coders.

    It's potentially legitimate to call it a WYSIWYG page layout tool for HTML, but that's about the limit. You can't create arbitrary visual compositions with it, you're stuck with whatever metaphors Macrodobe lays on top of the limited tools HTML/CSS have to offer. You certainly can't create drawings of any kind.

    If you want to do actual design, it's best to work in something with full vector and/or raster graphics capabilities like Illustrator or Photoshop (or better yet, Fireworks).

    And herein lies the problem. Dreamweaver sortof sits in this odd intersection of niches that worked 10 years ago but doesn't work so well now. It isn't a great design tool. It is a decent WYSIWYG HTML layout tool, but it has increasing in-browser and in-CMS competition here. It's also a decent code editor, and I suspect this will be its last bastion of loyal users... but even there, I think it's going to have to fight to stay alive.

    But I hope the idea that it's a *design* tool dies a swift death, and soon.

    1. Re:Dreamweaver's a terrible design program too. by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Dreamweaver sortof sits in this odd intersection of niches that worked 10 years ago but doesn't work so well now.

      Yeah, Dreamweaver was Pagemaker for the web. However web layout has only a very superficial resemblance to paper layout - and that resemblance has diminished considerably since Dreamweaver first appeared. Web design isn't really "layout" as such and wysiwyg doesn't really work - cos what you see isn't what someone else gets.

      It was a slightly dodgy concept at the outset, but it's well and truly had its day now, i think.

  33. Dreamweaver is Dying by painandgreed · · Score: 0

    Has Netcraft confirmed it?

  34. Long live Drupal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last Dreamweaver I used was 4 so I am sure not up to speed on it. However I do work with Quanta, Bluefish, Gimp, Inkscape and all the other graphical tools available under Linux, and guess what? I hav'nt felt a need to go back to any big name products since I switched over.

    Long live open source

    1. Re:Long live Drupal? by king-hobo · · Score: 1, Informative

      mm to be honest i found that this is one area that open source really cant keep up with. Quanta is by far the best open one out there but it lacks a lot when placed next to dreamwaver. i still use MX

  35. Weaving Drupal by lilfields · · Score: 1

    I use both of them, along with Photoshop to design some websites, you still have to get the templates set up if you want a unique style in Drupal...it's like saying that Wordpress is going to kill Dreamweaver. This web designer needs to be smacked.

  36. This just in by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Architects no longer needed due to rise in demand for modular homes.

    Ridiculous, right? My point exactly.

  37. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Dallas+Caley · · Score: 1

    yes, an editor, such as notepad, or maybe textmate, but Dreamweaver attempts to do the WYSIWYG which is geared towards those people who don't really know how to code. Those people are better off with something like drupal where they can't accidentally go in and muck everything up, so they aren't using dreamweaver. Those of us who do know how to code however wouldn't waste their time learning how to use dreamweaver because we don't need it and it makes our code look like garbage. So yea, i think i agree. Dreamweaver should die.

  38. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by IronChef · · Score: 1

    Drupal et al make life a whole lot easier when it comes to updating a website and adding content. But what about the design?

    Just install a Drupal module that generates new designs.

    What?

  39. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    It's true, and Dreamweaver's autocomplete is fantastic.

    Serious question - what is autocomplete actually *for*? I've used a few editors with code-completion features, and I've never really seen the point. All it seems to do is make the computer chug and whirr while it tries to guess what I'm typing, and fails, until eventually it gives up and lets me move onto the next command.

  40. Common Editors by kevin7kal · · Score: 0

    Are the editors of Slashdot so ignorant to the existence of content management systems to let this article through? One persons exuberance towards a particular content management system does not make a news worthy article. The author speaks of Drupal like he's discovering sliced bread. Plone as a CMS has been around for years, as have others.

  41. His argument is flawed by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    While a lot of personal sites clearly don't put any effort into design, professional sites do and you won't do that in Drupal.

    I've used DreamWaver from version 4 when they two versions up to CS3. Admittedly I've used each version less than the previous. I only used CS3 a few times because it's on my work PC. The biggest downside for me is that Dreamweaver doesn't run on Linux without using Wine and I rather not deal with DW under Wine. Plus DW does still feel a bit more designer oriented and I'm doing more serious development.

    I personally have some issues with DreamWeaver. It's very good but for the cost it's not worth it compared to the competition for proper development. However I think web designers, mac users and other "trendy" people still love it.

    1. Re:His argument is flawed by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      mac users

      Not this one. I do use Dreamweaver on the Mac but it's a total pile of junk. It might have got better in recent versions (I'm still using the MX 2004 version), but it's so buggy and slow it's embarrassing. Real Mac web developers use Coda.

  42. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by genik76 · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should update to a 21st century computer, having the power to display a list of few items without swapping memory? ;)

  43. Dreamweaver won't entirely die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure CMS is becoming the main thing but anytime a client wants a nice custom site you can create the theme for the CMS in Dreamweaver. In other words it's role is shifting.

  44. Let me know when the funeral is by Dracos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... so I can neglect to send flowers.

    For too long, too many self-described "web designers" have relied on Dreamweaver and its ilk to do their jobs for them. These people are not "web designers", they are graphic designers who think web documents are a blank canvas to be painted on, such as when they open a new file in Photoshop or Illustrator. The web is not a 3-panel brochure.

    This delusion is fostered by their uninformed clients and bosses who only consider what looks good and how fast (cheap) it is produced. Little explicit attention is paid to usability, readability, or accessibility.

    Good riddance, I say. The day these monkeys no longer have a crutch can not come soon enough.

    1. Re:Let me know when the funeral is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The web is not a 3-panel brochure.

      Yeah well.... A great deal of it is and mostly by check writers who want it to looking good, fast and cheap.

    2. Re:Let me know when the funeral is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't denigrate the medium that I work in, just to justify your "cause", in that you think all graphic designers rely on InDesign's lame output for web design. Yes, there are those who will. Probably too many, but there are just as many web designers who think that they know press work by submitting RGB photo files for CMYK or B&W output (and then wonder why we want to charge their clients for additional work to convert from RGB to CMYK)and submitting MS Word docs that don't correctly render black type; it renders on a RIP station as RGB, and therefore has dots in the type (in case you didn't know, that's BAD printing work).
      Yes, I agree that if you don't know both, don't do both-do one or the other, but you should make that point explicitly, because there are designers out there who know the difference, and know how to work appropriately. Don't offend those who work in print and web. If we're good, we're good, and we know what we're doing, and I wouldn't have to post this rant to a complete web designer. Ever submitted a web page for print? If not, you have no leg to stand on. Do you know how to do both? Further, could you fix a Postscript file when it won't render correctly? I can. Do you even know what Postscript is? If you don't, shut up, from all designers who ACTUALLY know the difference. And BTW, the only reason poor employees get into either profession, is because employers don't know the difference. The good employers find GREAT graphic designers.

    3. Re:Let me know when the funeral is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know nothing. Graphic designers NEVER open Dreamweaver and code in any real web shop. All they do is deliver a photoshop file in layers and the developers take if from there.
       
      I think its funny when coders or it/hosting guys who use Vi and Emacs for html and css believe they are web developers. Please.

  45. Dreamweaver for templates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't you use Dreamweaver to make Drupal templates?

  46. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by gobbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dreamweaver attempts to do the WYSIWYG which is geared towards those people who don't really know how to code.

    DW has its place due to site management and debugging tools, and it doesn't force the wysiwyg. When I use it, it's usually with the mixed text/graphical view, because it is faster to zero in on certain parts of the code graphically by clicking there, then switching to the code pane.

    Essentially, it's much faster to scan a picture than text, even if your markup is tidy, and it is nice to see the less-frequent available parameters for CSS in a pane rather than pull all of them from memory. DW's code has improved quite a bit over the years, too, it isn't the ugly mess it once was.

  47. Right tool for the right job by deanston · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dreamweaver was great if you want to code ColdFusion, Flash, and Flex. For a full IDE it beats Visual Studio in many features. Eclipse and other free "IDE" don't come close in terms of responsiveness and user friendliness. The problem is CF/Flex is a small percentage of the web compared to PHP, ASP.NET, Java, and a host of new platforms and frameworks (Django, ROR, etc.). Now with the advent of open source CMS and wiki systems, even for .NET, plus free plug-ins for Eclipse to code just about anything, along with shrinking IT budget, WHY would anyone pay the equivalent for full VS for it? The Server + IDE has been Adobe's bread and butter for years, that's why it's critical for Adobe to keep pushing for AIR/Flash. The only way to make DW popular again I can see is embrace open source languages and new frameworks, and lower the price.

  48. Is there a CMS that doesn't suck? by ifchairscouldtalk · · Score: 0

    Can anybody suggest a good, simple, and reliable CMS with a sane clean interface for those with simple needs? Something like CushyCMS, but which allows users to add new pages/content? Thanks!

  49. But Drupal, etc. are U-G-L-Y by deanston · · Score: 1

    One problem has persisted from desktop programming to web programming is that just because you can code doesn't mean you can make good design. Just as most Windows software are ugly as heck, I find most CMS all so cookie-cutter dreadful and difficult to enhance. What these new web programming frameworks all lack is some good designers on their team.

    1. Re:But Drupal, etc. are U-G-L-Y by jeevesbond · · Score: 1

      I find most CMS all so cookie-cutter dreadful and difficult to enhance.

      Drupal aint like that. You can theme anything in Drupal.

      What these new web programming frameworks all lack is some good designers on their team.

      http://drupal.org/node/305743

      --
      I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
  50. i use Drupal and Dreamweaver by jayhawk · · Score: 1

    i use the book module in my Drupal installation and use Dreamweaver to create the content of what goes into the book (e.g., formatting and stuff). what i'd really appreciate is a way to code for Wikipedia using Dreamweaver as i am now creating a lot of content for an open source textbook i am creating using Mediawiki (same tool Wikipedia uses).

  51. Captain Obvious strikes again! by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not news.
    Modern Web-CMSes and feasable CSS made DW design capabilities and it's offline templating system completely superflous somewhere back in 2002 or 2003. In fact, I posted very much the same analysis on this issue about 5 or 6 years ago here on slashdot. Whatever is left of DW is here to stay for those doing the actuall screen/HTML design. The rext of us uses CSS frameworks and foundation templates and simply replaces the GFX and/or the colorcodes. I haven't used DW longer than 5 minutes since back in 2001.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again! by sproketboy · · Score: 1

      The only thing is you used rext instead of 'rest'. Aside from that - perfect. :)

      [The best thing about German is that you get to say und (ooont!)]

  52. What's with the Dreamweaver hate? by wandazulu · · Score: 2, Informative

    I switched from doing everything in vi *to* Dreamweaver. I like having function lookup, automatic upload capability to the remote site, built in O'Reilly docs, etc.

    That said, I'm working with Dreamweaver the same way I did with vi, all typing, no layout. In addition, as I do some ColdFusion work, having that grammar built in too helps a lot.

  53. Dreamweaver vs Vim by Piata · · Score: 1

    I haven't used Dreamweaver in a while, but it was a WYSIWYG editor with a code view. The code view was actually pretty useful and had a lot of features that made it much better to work with than Vim.

    Of course I haven't used Vim in a while either. It really just depends on what your preferred text editor is. Anything with coloured syntax, code folding and built in FTP meets my needs.

    Gimp on the other hand does not. I'd never hire a designer that didn't know how to use Photoshop.

    1. Re:Dreamweaver vs Vim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd never hire a designer that didn't know how to use Photoshop.

      Even if the designer was kick-ass good with Gimp and could even write his own plugins?

    2. Re:Dreamweaver vs Vim by Shinobi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking as someone who's got some schooling and background in graphical design: No, I wouldn't hire that designer. Photoshop is just that much more useful. Odds are the "designer" working with gimp will be spending so much time coding that he won't be doing much real work. Even with the film gimp modifications etc, it can't compete with Photoshop, really. And that's feature wise.

      When it comes to workflow/UI, it's even worse. GIMP is designed by a programmer for another programmer, thinking that it works well for everyone. Photoshop... well, let's just say that when I tossed it in front of my dad the first time yeaaars ago, as a photographer without previous computer image editing experience, he found it perfectly intuitive. That's because hundreds of graphical artists, photographers etc have shaped the forming of it over the years, and the Adobe coders having to do it the way the artists like it. Another awesome program from Adobe that has no match at all in the Open Source world: Lightroom. Yes, the program can be sluggish when working with large pictures/large collections. But it's still better than the alternatives, because you get an excellent overview of what you're doing.

      That's a serious problem with GUI/workflow development, and most obvious in the Open Source world: If you come with suggestions for improvements, you may just get told to fuck off, basically, which happened to my dad. He spent about 5 hours writing an email, outlining what he thought needed changing in GIMP after testing it.

    3. Re:Dreamweaver vs Vim by siDDis · · Score: 1

      When it comes to workflow/UI, it's even worse. GIMP is designed by a programmer for another programmer, thinking that it works well for everyone.

      I strongly disagree with what you're saying about the workflow and UI in Gimp.

      Gimp is exellent for those who have two monitors and want toolbars on one screen and the image they're modifying on another screen.

      I'm one of those who learned Photoshop first but lately I've converted to Gimp because it do all I need for designing web pages, its free, and I can easily write my own plugins. Many of the features in Gimp that's missing from Photoshop are available as a plugin. And some features in Gimp are better done than the equivalent in Photoshop (for example sharpening). I still agree that Photoshop is a better product overall, but for web development it's really a non issue in my opinion.

      When I tried to learn Gimp I was as frustrated as every other photoshopper who tried to learn Gimp. It was hard and the Gimp UI didn't feel intuitive to learn. But I tried hard to learn Gimp and after a couple of days with practise I became just as productive with Gimp as with Photoshop.

      Gimp is great and I strongly belive a true graphics artist who actually spend time learning it will find that some of the features in Gimp are in fact really cool and not available in Photoshop. You should check out the Gimp Plugin Registry, you will find several time savers in there.

      I highly recommend using both. You get the best from both worlds and can still deliver outstanding art to your customers.

  54. Dreamweaver's more for coders than designers by weston · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A designer might need Dreamweaver

    Anyone doing design (artwork rather than page layout) isn't going to use Dreamweaver. It's great as a WYSIWYG html editor. From a design standpoint, it doesn't do much else. No raster or vector creation (unless you've decided to try the Celik CSS polygon method).

    The only people I know who still use it are coders who find the extra features it provides in terms of editing and site management useful. In this sense, the article is quite correct -- Drupal and Wordpress and other software are eating away at the market that used to see Dreamweaver as the option for editing webpages without knowing HTML. Now CMSs do that.

    Given that Dreamweaver really isn't a design tool either, usefulness as an IDE is pretty much the last thing Dreamweaver really has going for it.

    1. Re:Dreamweaver's more for coders than designers by Thinboy00 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The other thing is that Wordpress etc either are or could be standards compliant. When was the last time Dreamweaver gave you standards compliant code (Actually, as a slashdot user, you probably never used Dreamweaver. I did once (for school, mandatory, but they taught us HTML too.).)?

      --
      $ make available
    2. Re:Dreamweaver's more for coders than designers by FLEB · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to use DW (MX from '00-- small company, wouldn't spring for the upgrade) at work, and never touched the WYSIWYG view. The biggest advantage I've seen to DW is that it has a very good pre-generated template language. It allows you to do the sort of template-based sites with reusable snippets that you'd normally use (CMS/PHP/CGI/etc.) for, but allows you to generate them into static HTML files that require no special server-side technology to operate.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    3. Re:Dreamweaver's more for coders than designers by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I actually worked on a project where I had to use dreamweaver cs3. I found it acceptable as a IDE. I was part of a time already using it. I wouldn't buy it, but provided for free I would have no problem using it.

    4. Re:Dreamweaver's more for coders than designers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with what you said about coders. I like dreamweaver from a coders view. I used the design tools when I first started and quickly stopped. I never had any luck with WYSIWYG anyway.... it always ended up being WYSIWYWant. Plus the code was pretty bad back then. I am sure it is better now but there is no point in using the design tools, xhtml/css is so easy.

      On a side note, I am not sure I understand the comparison of Dreamweaver to Drupal. I thought Drupal was a CMS, hwo to you compare that to a software suite?

    5. Re:Dreamweaver's more for coders than designers by pbhj · · Score: 1

      I admit I've not used DW's current iteration but in the past it's been everything but good as a WYSIWYG editor - unless it was around 10 years ago when table-based layouts were still considered OK.

      I did use it for a couple of years though simply because of the check-out/tracking system and the ease of file management (which I now handle with Krusader, though Quanta has some nice upload functionality too). DW also had a nice companion program called Contribute which was good for clients, you can/could lock them down to only altering page content and leaving the "chrome" well alone.

      But yes CMSs do make DW pretty obsolete IMO.

    6. Re:Dreamweaver's more for coders than designers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people I know who still use it are coders who find the extra features it provides in terms of editing and site management useful.

      Why should coders use a "WYSIWYG" tool? The only people I know who use Dreamweaver are the ones that want to write their own homepage without knowing the first thing about coding. I used it in the 90s before I learnt HTML etc., but now I won't touch it because it really fucks up the code and makes it unreadable. TFA may be right in that non-coders are better off nowadays with online "homepage wizards", so the niche for Dreamweaver is shrinking.

    7. Re:Dreamweaver's more for coders than designers by TarantulaConsulting · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I totally hear where a lot of people are coming from on this issue.

      What is the fate of Web 1.0 development tools in a Web 2.0 world?

      The problem is that a lot of Web 2.0 goodness, such as Ajax, dynamic content, and collaboration require databases and dynamic coding. The static HTML produced by WYSIWYG web authoring tools can never meet the user expectations of today for a better web experience.

      So you could argue that WYSIWYG development tools are obsolete, and that portals and content management systems are the future, but I would only partially agree. Sure, the web is changing, but that does not mean Web user interface design, navigation design, usability, accessibility, information architecture, CSS, HTML, Web standards compliance, metadata, and cross-browser compatibility are dead. On the contrary - I would argue that tools like Dreamweaver are indispensible for ensuring that Web 2.0 applications remain "backwards compatible" with Web 1.0 standards and guidelines. :-)

      As users take on an increasing level of ownership of their content, we need web designers more than ever to help ensure the aesthetics and the semantics of the web do not suffer as a consequence (anyone remember GeoCities?). Dreamweaver happens to be an excellent tool for standards-based visual Web design and development. It makes it easy to create attractive pages that pass W3C compliance tests, and with the right Dreamweaver extensions you can build full-featured, Ajax-enabled, dynamic, collaborative Web 2.0 applications much more easily.

      I spent years evaluating different open-source portals and CMS systems written in different languages (ASP, PHP, Perl, and Java), and I found that they all imposed certain user interface design constraints and even the best web-based WYSIWYG editor required was still a lot less powerful than Dreamweaver. The nice thing about Dreamweaver is you get complete freedom to develop your Web user interface however you choose, without any design constraints imposed on you.

      But how do you get Web 2.0 support out of a Web 1.0 development tools? Remember Tim O'Reilly's Web 2.0 meme map?

      The answer is components - rich, data-driven, Ajax-enabled, standards-compliant Web user interface components.

      The component-based web development paradigm makes it easier to build content-driven, dynamic web applications with the latest Web 2.0 features. This is how desktop apps have been written for years, which is also consistent with the "Web as a platform" concept and the goal of making Web 2.0 applications more like desktop applications (that is, by building web applications the same way we build desktop software, we can make the web experience more like a desktop software experience).

      Since I do mostly Java development today, I decided to learn JavaServer Faces, a component-based framework for building web apps. As a long-time Dreamweaver user, I also wanted to create my JSF pages in Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver had no built-in JSF support, so I decided to write JSFToolbox for Dreamweaver, a suite of design and coding Dreamweaver extensions that support JavaServer Faces development.

      JSF is quite popular in the Java space today. We had our first conference last September. I spoke about using Dreamweaver for Web 2.0 development in my podcast from the conference - check it out if you like.

      One of the great things about JSF is that you get Ajax support for free with a lot of UI components, so you can simply add a rich tree component to your page for example and you don't have to write a single line of JavaScript to get the partial page rendering behavior. Our tools allow you to create Ajax-enabled JSF pages in Dreamweaver both visually and intuitively. Personally I've designed and implemented many JSF We

  55. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

    garbage_in->garbage_out

  56. Re:1st post? by cshark · · Score: 1

    Heh heh. I haven't tried that one. I'll wait for the linux version. Thing I have to wonder though; if dreamweaver dies... does that mean that we get to see a related end to ignorant know nothing columnists?

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  57. Dreamweaver isn't a design tool... by rHBa · · Score: 1

    ...it's a web tool for designers.

    The best way to build a good website, IMHO as a freelance web developer, includes three roles and sets of tools:

    1. Designer - Design tools such as Photoshop, illustrator etc (not my role!)
    2. Front end developer - Photoshop (for slicing and dicing PSDs supplied by the designer), text editor (I'm using Geany at present) and lots of browsers.
    3. Serverside developer - text editor/IDE, shell access.

    Dreamweaver is good for people who fulfill role 1 but aren't accomplished in role two or three and want to build a website.

  58. Heard of Artisteer? by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · · Score: 1

    I have used Dreamweaver for years and it has served me well. I do like Expressions Web v2 also. (I am using a trial copy, and am awaiting a full licence through my Action Pack subscription after passing a simple online course/marketing propaganda session.) However, its getting hard to justify not using a CMS. Setting up one has become increasingly easy. Adding a new page does not require updating other pages. And I have found a tool that automates creating decent quality custom templates. Its called Artisteer. My only connection is that I bought it and use it, and I just thought some readers here would be interested.

  59. Garbage Code by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 1

    Has anybody seen some of the garbage code that wysiwyg editors produce? It makes me want to cry after spending countless hours making my sites validate only to see some no talent ass clown start modifying pages in a wysiwyg with all kinds of invalid code. I will admit that Dreamweaver can also product this kind of code in it's design view but at least it has a decent code view.

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
  60. Biased blogging be gone! by floodo1 · · Score: 1

    Why is this news? The blogger offers basically no evidence and is obviously very biased. Sure the web is changing, but to say that all static websites will "be ripped out" and replaced is a bit much. He also just dismisses any changes that Adobe could make to keep Dreamweaver relevant by trivializing them as add-on.

    Seriously, spare me the blogosphere and it's lack of journalistic standards and the fanboyism for spreading drivel like this.
    The blogger makes an interesting point, but it's just personal opinion.

    --
    I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
  61. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Informative

    As alluded to in my post, it allows me to see a list of CSS properties (in a drop down that can easily be ignored), and then once I typed in the property, it gives a list of appropriate values.

    It does not make things quicker, it helps me keep track of the correct properties and values, since I don't do it enough to it all perfect, and it is quicker than browsing a reference site to see, "what type of border styles are there?"

    It does not interfere with the performance at all for me, and it does not obscure the text I am typing. And I can certainly click the dark green on the color wheel it pops up quicker than I can come up with my the hex values (though I bet dark green is a predefined color, I would know if I were typing this in dream weaver).

    We don't all do this all day, yet some of us need to do it sometimes. And with a pretty good grasp of the concepts (better than a lot of designers I am willing to bet), the auto-complete helps fill in the details (that I have worse than most designers), and it does it quicker than using the web for a reference (which I do at home), or even the giant O'Reilly CSS reference book by my desk.

    If you don't have access to DW Screem has a pretty decent start to it. When you type less than, it pops up a list of tags instantly, in DW this list shrinks as you type. That's not too useful, but when you hit space, it pops up a list of attributes, and only ones that apply to the tag you just types/picked. This makes it easy to see what you can do with a div, or a span. These are things that take a lot of time to just "know", so the fact that your editor does it can be helpful for beginners, or people who don't do it day in and day out.

    DW does it far better than screem (it works with CSS for starters), and that is worth something.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  62. Dreamweaver & Standards Compliance by weston · · Score: 4, Informative

    When was the last time Dreamweaver gave you standards compliant code (Actually, as a slashdot user, you probably never used Dreamweaver

    You might be surprised. I definitely prefer Vim myself, but at my last full-time job, most of the other coders used Dreamweaver and periodically, I'd fire it up... either because I found myself doing something where it was kindof nice to be able to interact with the page visually, or just to understand what the other guys liked about it as a tool and how they used it.

    To my surprise, at least with Dreamweaver 8, the code was pretty standards compliant. You could set which doctype you wanted for your (X)HTML, CSS support was decent, and could set it to warn you if you did something that violated the standard. Heck, I think you could actually even set it up to validate arbitrary XML documents.

    There were some other nice features. It's sortof nice having an integrated FTP client to save you a trip to another app, the sitewide search and replace function was certainly a little friendlier/convenient than some of the unixy ways, "clean up word html"...

    I don't miss it all that much myself, but honestly, I can see why some coders see it as a good tool to work in. Maybe that'll be enough to save it as a product.

    1. Re:Dreamweaver & Standards Compliance by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was the impression i got from a very brief acquaintance with Dreamweaver (watching someone else use it). It would be nice to be able to do some things in a wysiwyg way - and it would save a small amount of time and effort with some types of layout.

      But the minor extra convenience wouldn't be enough to get me to spend that amount of money on it - or to make up for having to do all my html work in a Windows virtual machine.

    2. Re:Dreamweaver & Standards Compliance by pbhj · · Score: 1

      The search and replace was very good. I moved on to Jedit after DW which has great plugins for FTP and s&r,etc.. Now, a few apps later, I use Quanta+ (though I find I'll use Kate or anything, nano in an ssh session, to make a quick alteration).

      The only thing Quanta doesn't do so well is the file management which I use Krusader. Quant's WYSIWYG mode is even worse than DW's was, maybe Amaya for that kind of function? webdeveloper toolbar add-on or firebug does it for me with the visual tweaking.

    3. Re:Dreamweaver & Standards Compliance by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can answer something for me. I regularly get templates done in Dreamweaver (by someone who actually takes pride in the fact that he doesn't know HTML/CSS), and they are an absolute mess of tables, class="Default", inlined styles and such. I haven't looked at Dreamweaver in years (yay, vim!), but does it encourage this kind of behaviour? I was under the impression that you could actually create clean, standards compliant code with it. Is there a magic "don't create crap" option I can make him check? Or would he actually have to learn something?

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    4. Re:Dreamweaver & Standards Compliance by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      How do you make web pages in vim when you don't know HTML? Is there something like vimclipse for Dreamwaver or something?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    5. Re:Dreamweaver & Standards Compliance by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      That was just sloppy/tired writing on my part. I use vim, but I get stuff from people who use Dreamweaver (and use it like a crutch, not like a development tool) and I am dying to make it a less painful activity for myself. Turning table infested layouts into code driven templates is as much fun as letting a monkey throw feces at you.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

  63. While we're on the topic... why Photoshop? by weston · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. Designer - Design tools such as Photoshop, illustrator etc (not my role!)
    2. Front end developer - Photoshop (for slicing and dicing PSDs supplied by the designer), text editor (I'm using Geany at present) and lots of browsers.

    This is pretty much the process I've used when I've been involved on the client side, and while it can have its problems (many designers who've never actually had to code a site have trouble groking liquid layouts and other web-centric design issues), it seems to be the best setup. People who are good coders and talented in both art and visual communications are rare, so it makes sense to divide the labor.

    The one thing that surprises me about this process, though, is that almost everyone uses Photoshop to do the artwork. This seemed like a basic fact of life to me, until I ended up working at a shop that did everything in Illustrator, and I was surprised to find out how much better this setup was -- not only did the artists seem to be more productive, the vector artwork seemd a lot easier to take apart however I saw fit as a coder. After working there for three years, it's been kindof painful going back to working with PSDs, and I wonder how much of the industry has every tried both given the apparent advantage of Illustrator...

    (And this is to say nothing of Fireworks. I mentioned it in the parent and don't want to sound like a broken record, but if Illustrator is better than Photoshop for this stuff, Fireworks is another 10 times better -- it's all the good stuff about both integrated into a program expressly designed for making websites, and it's so good at its job that I don't understand why its product cousin Dreamweaver gets all the fame.)

    1. Re:While we're on the topic... why Photoshop? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Fireworks == me too. Excellent tool. The filesizes are good and preview options as you change the filesize are very useful. AFAIK they were the (or one of the ) first mainstream tool(s) to use PNG format. Pity there's no linux version. On a tangent, Flash was always useful to me when editing video. I could make some good effects and import them into video projects easily. Then they made it more complicated and more web specific.

  64. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    Guess you've never seen what happens when a client decides to design their own site.

  65. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by yuda · · Score: 1

    "Handing Dreamweaver over to someone with no experience was always a joke." Yip I can agree with that, I got my start in webdesign by agreeing to take over the monthly updates of a small local zine, I was given an hour tutorial with the guy who built the site in dreamweaver before he got on a plane to Sydney. I had about 10 new pages to do up, that took me most of the next month to get them up to the site working on them a few hours a day, probably at least 60 hours in all. This was in 2000, I stopped using dreamweaver when I got heavily into using CSS for page design and layout and also started using *nix as my OS of choice. I did have to use dreamweaver for a contract I did around 18 months ago, and found it quite nice to use - it was the first time I had really used templates in dreamweaver. I'd agree with many other commentors when they say unless you want a generic looking site you will still need the services of a developer, I use Drupal Joomla and Wordpress fairly regularly for different jobs/projects and most of my time is spent making the sites looks different from every other cms site out there

  66. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  67. Re:1st post? by Bill+Dog · · Score: 1

    You mean like the kind who'd write with a straight face "the new Web 2.0 world of script-based PHP"?

    --
    Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
  68. Dude, your mom reads slashdot? by mister_jpeg · · Score: 1

    That's, uh... cool. what's her uid?

    --
    -jpeg
  69. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    Bluefish has had autocompletion for a few months now (in the unstable versions only, so far) and i love it! It means i can type "po[enter] r[enter]" instead of "position: relative;", etc. It saves a lot of keystrokes.

  70. I disagree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things are going in both directions at once. You can have a site that is completely code or a site that is completely WYSIWYG and a lot more like a work of art from the creators perspective. In the early days of WYSIWYG there was often a large discrepancy between what you saw and what you got. Today, either way works and it more depends on what you are doing on the web. Some people do art on the web. Some code business projects. Some do both at the same time.

    "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves". - Confucius

  71. No wonder it is dying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never used Dreamweaver but I can see how they might be failing...

    IDEs like Eclipse and NetBeans are so ridiculously strong and are free.

    I do most of my development with Aptana (which is a stand alone version of Eclipse catered towards PHP and JS, although they do offer an Eclipse plugin version as well).

    How can Dreamweaver compete with its features?

    Here are some of the main benefits of Aptana. I'm sure Dreamweaver might have some of the features but it's also not free.

    - Nearly flawless syntax highlighting + code complete for PHP/JS/JSON/CSS/XML/HTML. Very customizable.

    - Syntax highlighting/code complete for JS frameworks like jQuery (maybe proto... I don't use it) as well as PHP frameworks like Zend (never used it first hand).

    - Code complete picks up PHPDoc comments as well as user defined interfaces/classes/methods/properties/etc. on the fly.

    - Nearly flawless JS/PHP debugger (!).

    - Ability to work locally on PHP without having to setup any bs. Just install Aptana and you are instantly ready to run/debug PHP locally.

    - Ability to connect to a remote DB while working locally.

    - Connect to a remote FTP server so you can synch your files up without any hassle.

    - Built in DB browser (sort of like phpMyAdmin).

    - Fairly intelligent interface (you can switch between "Views" easily.. as in, your debug interface looks different than your coding interface which also looks different than the DB editor interface). All views are customizable and are 1 icon click away (or automatically switched).

    - SVN.

    There's a whole bunch of other stuff too but there's no point listing it all as the above covers most of the main features. I left out Aptana Cloud because it's not free, plus they have videos on their site if you want to learn more about it (I don't use it).

    Seriously, why would I spend $200US on Dreamweaver when I can goto Aptana's site and download Aptana for free? What does DW CS4 offer that this editor doesn't heh?

    PS. I'm not affiliated with Aptana at all. Just a fanboy of their product since I started using it about 2 weeks ago.

  72. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Fross · · Score: 1

    I agree - more specifically, the web is moving into a more specialised area, where Dreamweaver doesn't have the ability to compete as it's based on one view of how a webpage is constructed.

    The web is definitely moving further toward a CMS approach of arranging and syndicating content, which packages like Drupal, Teamsite and so on serve well. However, there is still a need to work with the presentation of such sites and their components.

    What would really rock would be a tight integration with the WYSIWYG components of something like dreamweaver, with a CMS, so it becomes an intergated part of the workflow. The site management stuff in dreamweaver, while good, just doesn't match how (large) sites are managed in the real world anymore. But as an editor, it is still very powerful and of benefit to anyone creating web content and design.

  73. Dreamweaver = Unreadable code by Gonoff · · Score: 0

    Once you have created a site with dreamweaver, you are effectively locked in. The HTML it writes is appalling.

    Agreed, it can do good stuff - templates, layers and lots more. Try and have a look at what it has done in a text editor. As a deliberate stir, I state that FrontPage code is a lot easier to read. Perhaps, less standards compliant, but a lot easier for someone with less expensive software and experience.

    Several years ago, I was given a set of simple pages written by different programmes, including MS Word. As everyone might guess, Word came first on the size with all its junk. Dreamweaver came (a not close) second. The winner for the tightest code was, unsurprisingly, the one done by a text editor but FrontPage Express came out well. As I remember, all the pages looked identical.

    Conclusion? Simple tools and knowledge are better than complicated tools and software lock ins...

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  74. Dreamweaver isn't bad, it ain't the best either by boteeka · · Score: 1

    When I got in the web-dev business I started with Dreamweaver. Not because it was all that good, but everybody I knew (and thought was a "pro" web-designer/developer) used it, and loved it. In the beginning I started as an all-in-one web developer, meaning I've done the server side programming, client side HTML and CSS, and the occasional JavaScript.

    Couple of years passed away since then, and I now absolutely don't want to use Dreamweaver at all. Why? Because I do not create static sites anyway, PHP support is worth shit (no autocomplete, no outlining, etc.), the HTML autocomplete feature just doesn't cut it for me (it works, sort of, but not the way I like it; it doesn't prevent you from introducing not-valid-for-the-doctype attributes, etc.). The only good things, which I do liked was the integrated FTP support (but no version control support of any kind), and the CSS editing mode (I could edit the CSS rule from the HTML file and the modifications were saved in the external CSS file, linked to the HTML file).

    Since then, I use Aptana Studio, and I absolutely love it. It has all I need. It works good with PHP, Ruby, HTML, CSS, JavaScript (actually this is awesome, very good quality). It has FTP, SFTP support. It has version control support (CVS, SVN, GIT, maybe more). And a very big plus: it has support for the most popular JavaScript libraries (autocomplete and all), like: jQuery, Prototype, Scriptaculous, MooTools, EXTjs, Dojo, etc.

    And to top it all, it has integrated support for online deployment to the cloud (Aptana Cloud) where you can have a hosting plan and deployment done with a few clicks right from Aptana Studio.

    Oh, and did I mention the server-side JavaScript AJAX server, Jaxer?

    It beats Dreamweaver hands down any minute.

  75. this is news? by speedtux · · Score: 0

    When was the last time you actually saw a static web site?

    This "news item" is the equivalent of saying "horse and buggies are disappearing from the streets".

  76. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Lennie · · Score: 1

    Maybe you would better remember it, if you didn't use the auto-completion.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  77. Re:1st post? by ivucica · · Score: 1

    and scriptless Javascript

  78. Ever hear of Flex and Air? by Frankenshteen · · Score: 1

    Tfa fails to mention Flex - Adobe's answer to the dynamic web.

    --
    "It's a doughnut stuffed with M&M's. That way when you finish the doughnut, you don't have to eat any M&M's."
  79. I want my, I want my, I want my MTV by tepples · · Score: 2, Funny

    Try using Django. kthxbai

    To be fair, that's more MTV.

    Does that mean web developers who use Django get their money for nothing and their chicks for free?

    1. Re:I want my, I want my, I want my MTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I do...

  80. I know this might be considered a troll.. by pulse2600 · · Score: 1

    but may I ask: what is the real benefit to totally handcoding a site as opposed to using web design applications? I really like the ability to create a layout in Fireworks and then have that imported into Dreamweaver where I can continue to design graphically or code by hand where I feel it is necessary. I can see what it will look like instantly in the WYSIWYG, and then test it in the million different browsers I have installed on my system. Some of us do not want to code our sites 60 hours a week, we want to spend the time on figuring out the actual look and feel of the site, writing copy, editing graphics, etc. Maybe if you have a full team of developers and a marketing department its a different story...marketing writes the copy, creates the images, has the concept for the layout of the site, and then developers just code it to marketing's specs.

    But many organizations, especially small businesses that like to do things in-house don't have those luxuries. I have been in the position of being responsible for ALL ASPECTS of a corporate site, from copy to images to layout and coding. Many people in positions like mine love the ability to quickly put together the site, have an automated tool tell me the code is compliant to whatever standard I desire, and then dive into the code where I see things just aren't right, or to write the dynamic portions of the site that can't be put together in a WYSIWYG environment. Tools like Dreamweaver (especially Dreamweaver, I've used it since Dreameaver MX) and really the entire Macromedia Studio/Adobe Web Design package as a whole have been a Godsend.

    Ultimately if the page looks great, runs well, is secure, built quickly, cost effective, and meets all the requirements of the organization or customer, what's the problem? Other than personal ego and bragging rights (neither of which have anything to do with creating a website), I don't see the big deal.

    1. Re:I know this might be considered a troll.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but may I ask: what is the real benefit to totally handcoding a site as opposed to using web design applications? I really like the ability to create a layout in Fireworks and then have that imported into Dreamweaver where I can continue to design graphically or code by hand where I feel it is necessary. I can see what it will look like instantly in the WYSIWYG, and then test it in the million different browsers I have installed on my system. Some of us do not want to code our sites 60 hours a week, we want to spend the time on figuring out the actual look and feel of the site, writing copy, editing graphics, etc. Maybe if you have a full team of developers and a marketing department its a different story...marketing writes the copy, creates the images, has the concept for the layout of the site, and then developers just code it to marketing's specs.

      Well, you could always create a super efficient/super lightweight MVC type of structure then just re-use it. Spend a few days making it the best it can possibly be then when you make a new site re-use the code! Now you have 100% bug free code (hopefully :D) that's guaranteed to work.

      Aptana is nearly a WYSIWYG editor. Well not really but I mean you can code PHP/HTML/whatever and just click a tab and it'll compile/run everything instantly. There's a [Source] [Firefox] [IE] tab at the bottom to switch instantly.

      If you're developing a "good" page then your view pages (what people see) won't really be dependant on the page code itself. There's no use for a WYSIWYG editor because the page is 100% dependant on a CSS file or 2.

      You can use an application like http://www.skybound.ca/ to visually edit the CSS if you wanted to. Aptana+Stylizer is an absolutely deadly combo for web dev.

      Once you get used to this style of coding you can put together a 100% dynamic unique site in no time (time would depend on how much content you're planning to add). You don't need a team to do this.

  81. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    It means i can type "po[enter] r[enter]" instead of "position: relative;", etc

    I just find that annoying. It breaks my concentration.

  82. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    In Bluefish, turning it off is as easy as clicking a box in the preferences dialog.

  83. Wait a second. by /dev/trash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you really comparing Dreamweaver with Drupal? My God. Some poor schmuck is now ditching Dreamweaver and installing Drupal 7.x ( it is the latest so it must be the greatest ) wondering why they need to know their mySQL login credentials for a replacement to DW. Oi.

  84. Re:1st post? by cshark · · Score: 1

    LOL, really. Holy hell. And this isn't the first idiotic article this guy has written. I wonder if it takes a special skill set to be a jackass columnist for a pc magazine.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  85. No really, it is not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every site I have done...
    is in Emacs.

    If I could afford dreamweaver I may take a look at it... I started to look at Drupal, but I already know PHP and MySQL and have built my own CMS libs.

    No I am a molecular biologist and most of my dynamic sites are just little things I have done for fun...

    But I really like Emacs for an editing system. Not trying to be adversarial, it just works for me, and it is on any machine I ever run across.

  86. Who said html? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said he was writing html with vim? I use a text editor that is a bit more graphic-y (kate), but that does not mean that I am writing entire web pages by hand and copy-pasting bits between them.

    Rather, I write the php or asp or [insert server side scripting language] that generates the html from information the database, applying a standard and easily editable template to it. If you want to talk productivity, this is it. One person can maintain and constantly redesign dozens of websites (got to keep up with the latest in web-fashion) while other people provide the information.

    This is the only way to do web development properly.

  87. Something for arrogant code jockies to consider by mrraven · · Score: 1

    First your skills ARE incredibly valuable and you deserve your high pay for the hard intellectual work you do. However tight architecture is NOT the only thing that makes a web site successful in fact good graphic design is what the user sees up front, you can have the best most efficient modularized back end and if you have such poor taste that you put say blue text on a yellow background your web site will still be an usability disaster. In short there IS a place for people with art/design background who know about things like white space:

    http://www.digital-web.com/articles/css_101/

    The most readable fonts, what an anti aliased font is, what colors complement each other, having enough color contrast for web page elements to stand out etc. If you implement a web side with the best most efficient custom coded Drupal plugins but fail to find a designer no one will want to visit your unshiny fast beast. In short don't just snidely dismiss those of us whose skill set runs towards photoshop, Wacom tablets, Dreamweaver, basic Joomla and reading poetry on lunch breaks if you want a popular web site as well as one that is efficient. Your code oriented arrogance may well be your own downfall if you can't see beyond the forest of fastest sorting algorithms and other non visual CS oriented thinking.

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  88. Too meta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dreamweaver isn't dying. Otherwise I would have confirmed it.

    No, the cliche isn't "Netcraft Confirms It confirms it". It's "Netcraft confirms it".

    Bet you tried registering that one first, though :-P

  89. I make Drupal themes in Dreamweaver. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Defense rests.

    Or I used to, anyway. Now that I'm gradually switching to Linux, I will be learning to use a new and probably much cooler web editor soon.

    The point remains, however. Comparing Drupal to Dreamweaver is like comparing cars to paint. You can draw a picture of a car, but it won't move anywhere. You can build a car without paint, but you'll be limited in making it look like you want it to.

    (Though, to complete the analogy, you don't need to handle the paint pistol yourself when you can use a packaged theme or pay a design studio.)

  90. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    In Bluefish, turning it off is as easy as clicking a box in the preferences dialog.

    This is why opensource wins. In Dreamweaver you probably have to buy a time-limited shareware plugin ;-)

    These days I use gedit, because life is too short to use vim. I think there *are* code completion plugins for it, but I can quite happily live without them. There's not exactly a world of difference between syntax highlighting and code completion...

  91. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, in Dreamweaver, you just disable it in the preferences window. Funny how Dreamweaver having a features years before open source gets around to copying it (in an unstable branch) is a win for open source.

  92. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by nidarus · · Score: 1

    Themes and modules don't magically appear from the void

    Uhm... Hottie Parms wrote:

    Unless you want to stick to the default Drupal (or insert CMS here) themes, you'll probably want to design your own CMS template so people get a unique feel for your website. You'll still need to fall back on your classic static web-design skills using programs like Dreamweaver (or notepad).

    Btw, if you're talking about modules, Dreamweaver is a shitty PHP IDE. Use phpDesigner, use the free Eclipse plugin, whatever. For pure PHP, Dreamweaver is just a half-decent text editor.

  93. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

    I use Drupal Joomla and Wordpress fairly regularly for different jobs/projects and most of my time is spent making the sites looks different from every other cms site out there

    How about you learn to use a comma?

    --
    Can I get an eye poke?
    Dog House Forum
  94. Drupal Extensions for Dreamweaver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the guy who created the Drupal extensions for Dreamweaver (download at http://xtnd.us), and I have to disagree with the article. No respectable designer would use free themes if theyâ(TM)re entire career is based around custom designs. Dreamweaver is strong and is a key tool in creating Themes for CMS systems such as Drupal, or any other customizable CMS.

    Dreamweaver is a tool for web production. I manage user groups for Adobe and Drupal in Los Angeles (LA Drupal; DrupalCamp LA), and the room gets packed when I cover Drupal + Dreamweaver⦠so I repeat, this article is not based on true market numbers. Web designers are not dropping Dreamweaver, but instead asking how it should be properly used in web workflows when a CMS is adopted/customized.

    The latest release of Dreamweaver (CS4) is a boon for people who need to stay on top of web design as it has great live preview features, the best CSS editing for pros, and a live JavaScript engine that allows you to pause any state of interactivity - which Firebug does not have, and has had PHP and database support for a long-long time. Dreamweaver is not for VI hardcores, of course not - it never was. People need help with their workflow and not told their commercial software is âoedead.â

    Drupal + Dreamweaver = http://xtnd.us

  95. Are You Kidding Me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Dreamweaver remains the best HTML/CSS page-based editor available." How did you even quantify this?

    Panic's Coda which is Mac only, far surpasses Dreamweaver user interface and lack of feature bloat. Also keep in mind that Dreamweaver suffers from the same problem FrontPage has, is injects all sorts of extra crap HTML that is unneeded. Plus who the hell uses a WYSIWYG editor for Web Design and Development anymore? Learn how to do HTML and CSS by hand, you will be much happier with the results.

  96. I agree by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

    A litle off topic,  but I agree.  The new WYSWYG is done through a browser.

    Not that I use Drupal as I find that too complex.  I use a package using a hierarchical database (i.e. a filesystem) to minimize technical load and some good skins so no html, no css knowledge here. 

  97. Most CMS's code sucks as well by drx · · Score: 1

    Code sucks and sucks and will continue to do so. Most CMS's i came across generate awful code and navigation, including Drupal, Wordpress, typo3, joomla or how it is called, they all did very badly "out of the box". You have to put a lot of effort into them to make them produce reasonable sites.

    Dreamweaver has a bad history, it was a tool that tried the impossible: To make pixel perfect sites in the age of Netscape 4 and Internet Explorer 5. Maybe it got better, i have seen it has a quite good text editor now. Though nothing Eclipse or any Kate or Gedit can't more or less do. (Integrated FTP client?? Who is still using FTP?)

    Of course using it as a WYSWYG tool for web "production" is limiting. Because you cannot "see" everything, most of the things that happen online are not "visible" anyway. Everything will come into a form at one point, but the real design is in the processes that lead to these forms. Dreamweaver encourages to think about the web as "pages" in a catalog you flip through or export from your desktop publishing app.

    But as long as "design" onlnie means to put gradients or the latest fashionable graphical style everywhere, Dreamweaver will have its uses. Though there might be better tools for this task, like Fireworks.

  98. Wrong metaphor. by drx · · Score: 1

    Dreamweaver is not an architect, it does not really openly make decisions for you.

  99. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Actually, in Dreamweaver, you just disable it in the preferences window. Funny how Dreamweaver having a features years before open source gets around to copying it (in an unstable branch) is a win for open source.

    Did you hear a whooshing sound there? Don't worry about it.

  100. Notepad bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a rock and papyrus to write my code. I am superior.

  101. So he was right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now I am an architect..."

    You were moved into management.

    Sigh.....

  102. Re:Content Management System is not a design progr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why would any designer worth his salt use dreamweaver and not a real graphics editor like photoshop or illustrator (or gimp and inkscape)?

  103. the author is comparing 2 diffrent things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have my own response in here.
    http://www.chibidesign.com/personal-blog/82-im-sorry-but-dreamweaver-is-dying-review.html

  104. at end of day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At end of day you have to fit into some kind of box the question is which tool is best for the job at hand, No point reinventing the gallery unless thats what is most important given the time and times change. Sometime you have to work with people who just know what a keyboard and browser are and they want to say and do. Nobody has even mentioned Ubercart and you can use dreamweaver and Drupal together and its great. Disruptive technology gets stuff done.