- It leads you down a primrose path to incompatible code. The style sheets, javascript, etc. are not compatible enough for use without serious testing on every browser/OS combination you plan to suport. Make sure you know what it's putting in your documents!
- It doesn't do exact placement. Artists want to treat a WYSIWYG tool the way they would treat Photshop or Quark and just drag the image where it should go, but DW can only do this by using style sheets that don't work on all browsers. There is a conversion mode for turing things into tables, but it doesn't work when you have forms, javascript, or an especially complex layout.
- The rendering (as mentioned in the previous message) is not accurate. Things look different in DW than they do in any browser. You still have to preview everywhere.
- It is godawful slow, probably due to being partly built with the world's worst programming language, javascript.
I don't know if the competition is much better, but if you really want a tool that is easy for artists to use, you might do better elsewhere.
(In fairness, I must admit that I have a grudge against Macromedia because I once had to use Director. Total nightmare.)
Apache is NOT written for maximum speed. The Apache Group developers openly acknowledge this. If you really need maximum performance out of a box serving static web content (which, in practice, almost no one does) you should look at Zeus (http://www.zeus.co.uk/) or the open source thttpd (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/). Both of these will do MANY times better than Apache under a heavy load.
Also keep in mind that, as the Apache Group says at http://www.apache.org/docs/misc/perf-tuning.html, most people can easily fill all of their bandwidth running Apache on a low-end Pentium. You'll run out of bandwidth long before you run out of power.
Slashdot Mirror
"E*Trade is all Java (v1.1.x) running on top of Netscape App Server (formerly Kiva)."
I've used NAS. It sucks. Terrible API. Inflexible. Lousy performance. You'd be better off writing your own from scratch.
"Cars.com is all Servlets and JDBC."
And they have serious problems because of it. I've seen their design and it's not very scalable.
There are a few problems with DreamWeaver.
- It leads you down a primrose path to incompatible code. The style sheets, javascript, etc. are not compatible enough for use without serious testing on every browser/OS combination you plan to suport. Make sure you know what it's putting in your documents!
- It doesn't do exact placement. Artists want to treat a WYSIWYG tool the way they would treat Photshop or Quark and just drag the image where it should go, but DW can only do this by using style sheets that don't work on all browsers. There is a conversion mode for turing things into tables, but it doesn't work when you have forms, javascript, or an especially complex layout.
- The rendering (as mentioned in the previous message) is not accurate. Things look different in DW than they do in any browser. You still have to preview everywhere.
- It is godawful slow, probably due to being partly built with the world's worst programming language, javascript.
I don't know if the competition is much better, but if you really want a tool that is easy for artists to use, you might do better elsewhere.
(In fairness, I must admit that I have a grudge against Macromedia because I once had to use Director. Total nightmare.)
Apache is NOT written for maximum speed. The Apache Group developers openly acknowledge this. If you really need maximum performance out of a box serving static web content (which, in practice, almost no one does) you should look at Zeus (http://www.zeus.co.uk/) or the open source thttpd (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/). Both of these will do MANY times better than Apache under a heavy load.
Also keep in mind that, as the Apache Group says at http://www.apache.org/docs/misc/perf-tuning.html, most people can easily fill all of their bandwidth running Apache on a low-end Pentium. You'll run out of bandwidth long before you run out of power.