Forums | MacLife

Basseq wrote:

1) Is anyone else, like, really stoked for CS3? Nerds.

Hells yes!  Fireworks & Flash CS3 specifically.  If they do nothing other than upgrade the interface to adobe standards that will be enough. 

And looking forward to intel support.  the PS CS3 beta was wicked faster on my mbp.

Basseq wrote:

2) I wish Rails was more prevalent. That smurf is cool.

It is.  Just not in the US.

Denali,

When you decide to learn to code HTML save up and buy BareBones Software's BBEdit. It has a tool that presents your basic HTML tags. It's very easy to use, and is very good for a learner.

It is also an extremely good text editor.

sturner wrote:

Denali,

When you decide to learn to code HTML save up and buy BareBones Software's BBEdit. It has a tool that presents your basic HTML tags. It's very easy to use, and is very good for a learner.

It is also an extremely good text editor.

Yeah, I swapped to BBEdit from TextWrangler and am not sorry.  The full version is very expensive (I would say overpriced) but the education version is excellent value if you are eligible.

G4z wrote:

Dreamweaver of course, but 100% code view. couldn't live without it.

I don't really like dreamweaver's HTML rendering, it tends to make a mess of some pages I have tried it with..

If you are going to use it as a text editor, why not just use a text editor?

G4z wrote:

spinner wrote:

G4z wrote:

Dreamweaver of course, but 100% code view. couldn't live without it.

I don't really like dreamweaver's HTML rendering, it tends to make a mess of some pages I have tried it with..

If you are going to use it as a text editor, why not just use a text editor?

advanced CMS with FTP access. i grew up with that learning how to use it, now it's just something i can't live without. i do use taco for quick edits, but when i know i'm getting stuck in, whack open that bad boy.

Good reason, FTP features is one of the reasons I use BBEdit.  Still, I am looking forward to giving Dreamweaver CS3 a go when it arrives.

Geez. That's a pretty bold generalized statement to make, Scott, but everyone is entitled to their opinions aren't they... There are many talented professionals using DW that actually know how to use it.

CurtisS wrote:

Geez. That's a pretty bold generalized statement to make, Scott, but everyone is entitled to their opinions aren't they... There are many talented professionals using DW that actually know how to use it.

To be clear, I am not referring to everyone who uses it.  And I am not saying it is not a useful or powerful tool in its field.  Or that people who do use it professionally are any the less for it.

My statements were really about people must constantly qualify their use of DW with "... but I only use it in code view...".

Look back through threads, you will see many (if not most) feel the need to make that statement.   You rarely see that for any other tool of any kind.  You never see, "I use Photoshop... but only for the bitmap tools."

There is nothing wrong with WYSIWYG.  No need to be ashamed of it, or to 'apologize' for using one by pretending you don't use those tools.  This is MacLife after all, not LinuxCommandLineLife. 

I like DW.  I use a few times a month.  I find it useful for cleaning up/ripping out content, troubleshooting broken pages and a few other things.  But I only work on the code level for new development.  I don't/can't  use a WYSIWYG for the type of stuff I do. 

What my comments boil down to is this:

1) If you use DW, you don't have to qualify your use by pretending you work in a way you don't, or...
2) If you really do only use it only in code view, you haven't explored your options.  For that specific type of use,  there are much better solutions.  Faster, more efficient, more powerful and cheaper. 

If you are working professionally, you should always take the time to evaluate your tool set, making sure you are using the best tool for your process.

2 weeks ago I discovered a whiteboard during an interview.  They're the bomb!  I sniffed the blue marker and got high...

Scott wrote:

CurtisS wrote:

Geez. That's a pretty bold generalized statement to make, Scott, but everyone is entitled to their opinions aren't they... There are many talented professionals using DW that actually know how to use it.

To be clear, I am not referring to everyone who uses it.  And I am not saying it is not a useful or powerful tool in its field.  Or that people who do use it professionally are any the less for it.

My statements were really about people must constantly qualify their use of DW with "... but I only use it in code view...".

Look back through threads, you will see many (if not most) feel the need to make that statement.   You rarely see that for any other tool of any kind.  You never see, "I use Photoshop... but only for the bitmap tools."

There is nothing wrong with WYSIWYG.  No need to be ashamed of it, or to 'apologize' for using one by pretending you don't use those tools.  This is MacLife after all, not LinuxCommandLineLife. 

I like DW.  I use a few times a month.  I find it useful for cleaning up/ripping out content, troubleshooting broken pages and a few other things.  But I only work on the code level for new development.  I don't/can't  use a WYSIWYG for the type of stuff I do. 

What my comments boil down to is this:

1) If you use DW, you don't have to qualify your use by pretending you work in a way you don't, or...
2) If you really do only use it only in code view, you haven't explored your options.  For that specific type of use,  there are much better solutions.  Faster, more efficient, more powerful and cheaper. 

If you are working professionally, you should always take the time to evaluate your tool set, making sure you are using the best tool for your process.

I do like having GoLive for when I have to screw with complex tables... that's about it, now.

I'm waiting for someone to say that they only code in binary.

As a writer, I prefer the pure essense of it. Only clay tablets or papyrus.

G4z wrote:

i only made that statement, because i am a proffesional, i use this proffesional tool because i prefer it over others, i have tried notepad ++ and all the others,

Notepad++ is 1) Windows only, 2) not even in the same class as TextMate or BBEdit.

G4z wrote:

but for some reason i just prefer dreamweaver, saying that because i ONLY use code view therefore means i havn't explored my options is just a genrilized statement, you don't know what i have and havn't done with dreamweaver,

You are right, I don't know what you have or haven't done.  But I do know Dreamweaver.  You remove the WYSIWYG, and you have a mediocre text editor with ftp and file management.

G4z wrote:

in the past i may have used it as a WYSIWYG editor, but moved on as my skills grew with experiance. Now i haven't evaluated as such, but i know that any other tool will just slow me down, i'm to used to dreamweaver after using it for so long.

I don't know if you are farmiliar with the old agage about the man with the dull axe.  To paraphrase:  A man walks up to another man who is trying to cut down a tree with a dull axe and it is going very slowly.  He asks, "Why don't you sharpen that axe?".  To which the man replies, "I don't have time, I have to cut this tree down.". 
Anytime you change your workflow, process or tools there will be some initial slow down.  But if you have chosen your tools well, that is easily offset by the time savings. It is a great time to be a Mac user.  There are some truly exceptional tools for development available to only Mac users that don't have an equivalent on the Win or *nix side.  Tools that are both deep and wide in terms of power and flexibility.  That includes OSX itself and tools that aren't specific to development, like Quicksilver or iTerm that are incredibly useful for development.

G4z wrote:

i earn a living from working with the web...

There may be cheaper tools out there, but i only payed a sum of £80 for the whole studio 8 edition, as i'm a student i get the discount.

With regards to price, I was speaking only from the standpoint of professional development.  If you pirate or use licenses inappropriately, then price doesn't matter at all.  Student editions are not allowed to be used for commercial projects, only educational.  You could have saved £80, and just got it off a torrent or p2p.  The result is exactly same.

G4z wrote:

your point of efficeny is valid up untill the comment before on speed, so it isn't. i'm more efficent in dreamweaver than in any other programe, i've tried many over the years.. dreamweaver is slower to load up that small appds such as Taco, but you get used to it, and it's something i live with, and i don't personally see it as a down side.

True, as a WYSIWYG, it is pretty snappy compared to most.  I was only speaking with regards to text editors.  It still suffers from memory issues and will dodgy if you it for extended periods of time, it doesn't handle large files very well or too many pages.  All of the main text editors blow it away in these regards hands down.  Presumably much of slowness and interface doggy-ness will go away once it goes UB and gets a fresh new Adobe interface.

justG wrote:

Let's add one to the mix: Panic released Coda yesterday. It's purty and functional and worth a look-see.

D'oh!
I didn't see this comment before I started a new thread on it.

It is indeed purty and has some nice UI stuff going on (as is always the case with Panic products), but after playing with it for about an hour the shinyness wore off for me, and I couldn't find any good reason to use it.  Hopefully future versions will have stronger feature sets.

Deus-

That's a nice looking site you got there. The photos are very good!

One thing, though, is the load time is kind of long. Now, there are many things that could contribute to that which are out of your control: your host's speed, my own data connection (which is usually fast, but it could be wonky), etc... But one thing that you get as a result of the WSYWIG editors is bloated code. You're site isn't the worst that I've seen (hey, you didn't use frontpage!), but just know that if the site were hand coded from the ground up, it would be much more lean.

for your purposes, though, it does what you need, and looks great. Good work!