Dreamwaver

[yingjian.ma1955]

Hi,

What's the difference between Dreamwaver and Adobe GoLive CS2. Which
one is better? Thanks.

[Randy Webb]

yi*************@gmail.com said the following on 10/6/2005 7:08 PM:

Hi,

What's the difference between Dreamwaver and Adobe GoLive CS2.
It's the same difference as the difference between someone asking a
javascript question in a javascript forum and someone asking a
javascript question in a recreational woodworking forum.

Which one is better?

Both produce bloated/invalid HTML so what difference does it make?
Thanks.

Sure.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Joe D Williams]

> Both produce bloated/invalid HTML and scripts ....

"Randy Webb" <Hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:q_********************@comcast.com...

yi*************@gmail.com said the following on 10/6/2005 7:08 PM:

Hi,

What's the difference between Dreamwaver and Adobe GoLive CS2.

It's the same difference as the difference between someone asking a
javascript question in a javascript forum and someone asking a
javascript question in a recreational woodworking forum.

Which one is better?

Both produce bloated/invalid HTML so what difference does it make?

Thanks.

Sure.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Jafar As-Sadiq Calley]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:08:08 -0700, yingjian.ma1955 wrote:

Hi,

What's the difference between Dreamwaver and Adobe GoLive CS2. Which
one is better? Thanks.

You'd be better off learning html and using vi or notepad. Doing it
manually is quicker and less painful to debug, not to mention less
expensive.

--
Jafar Calley
SysAdmin - http://moonlife-records.com
--------------------------------------
See the latest Mars and Saturn images
http://fatcat.homelinux.org

[bgulian]

> What's the difference between Dreamwaver and Adobe GoLive CS2. Which

one is better? Thanks.

Tim Berners-Lee intended HTML to be a program generated language, not a
handcoded one so take what these other guys say with a grain of salt.
I have not used the Adobe product but have found Dreamweaver to be
great for managing my sites. Having said that, I must admit that I do
hand code most of my HTML and all of my PHP and Javascript. What
Dreamweaver helps at is completing parameter lists, obscure HTML
syntax and DOM elements. What it excels at is site management and
integration.

I would never buy Dreamweaver for full price though. Get it on ebay or
some such. For $400 you expect a program to be relatively bug free.
Dreamweaver is full of nasty little bugs, some of which (as of MX 2004)
simply crash the program.

Bob Gulian

[nikki]

bg*****@gmail.com wrote:

What's the difference between Dreamwaver and Adobe GoLive CS2. Which
one is better? Thanks.

I have not used the Adobe product but have found Dreamweaver to be
great for managing my sites.

Having had to fix code generated by DW and code generated by ADL, I'll
take DW every time.
I've never seen so much bloated, obfuscated, unneeded crap generated by
an IDE. I was thinking about getting it until someone needed help
modifying javascript validation generated by it. Oh. My. God.
No thanks.
If you must use an IDE, use DW.

I use DW for its site management capabilities and the dual pane view
between the preview and the code, but nearly all my code is hand-done.
It's great to drag and drop components (especially tables), as it means
less typing, but be aware that you better know how to fix the crap that
gets added in. ;)

[Oliver Saunders]

> You'd be better off learning html and using vi or notepad. Doing it

manually is quicker and less painful to debug, not to mention less
expensive

I'm sure that handcoding is "better" but do you really think that its
faster? Do you have experience that developing in dreamweaver is slower
than by hand or do you just say that to make you feel better about your
choice to code by hand.

[Randy Webb]

Oliver Saunders said the following on 10/8/2005 4:59 AM:

You'd be better off learning html and using vi or notepad. Doing it
manually is quicker and less painful to debug, not to mention less
expensive

I'm sure that handcoding is "better" but do you really think that its
faster? Do you have experience that developing in dreamweaver is slower
than by hand or do you just say that to make you feel better about your
choice to code by hand.

By the same token, is your opinion based on past/current use of Dreamweaver?

And yes, I have experience attempting to develop with Dreamweaver and
then spending countless hours straightening out code that it spit out.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Martin Kurz]

Randy Webb schrieb:

Oliver Saunders said the following on 10/8/2005 4:59 AM:

You'd be better off learning html and using vi or notepad. Doing it
manually is quicker and less painful to debug, not to mention less
expensive

I'm sure that handcoding is "better" but do you really think that its
faster? Do you have experience that developing in dreamweaver is
slower than by hand or do you just say that to make you feel better
about your choice to code by hand.

By the same token, is your opinion based on past/current use of
Dreamweaver?

And yes, I have experience attempting to develop with Dreamweaver and
then spending countless hours straightening out code that it spit out.

I would say, it depends on the way you're using DW. I really like DW for two
things: Doing fast development of a sites baselayout and using the
DW-Template-System for medium-sized sites (too large to use pure hand-coded
pages and too small for using a CMS).

So when I'm developing the base-layout, I'm doing it on DW and when i'm lucky
with the look, I'm cleaning the code by hand (although the DW-HTML-code is
really good for a WYSIWYG - but JS is really bad) and building the templates (by
hand too). So I can be sure that even non-professionals can work with the
templates and build/actualize the pages without destroying my work.

greetings,

martin

[Randy Webb]

Martin Kurz said the following on 10/9/2005 4:04 PM:

Randy Webb schrieb:

Oliver Saunders said the following on 10/8/2005 4:59 AM:

You'd be better off learning html and using vi or notepad. Doing it
manually is quicker and less painful to debug, not to mention less
expensive

I'm sure that handcoding is "better" but do you really think that its
faster? Do you have experience that developing in dreamweaver is
slower than by hand or do you just say that to make you feel better
about your choice to code by hand.

By the same token, is your opinion based on past/current use of
Dreamweaver?

And yes, I have experience attempting to develop with Dreamweaver and
then spending countless hours straightening out code that it spit out.

I would say, it depends on the way you're using DW. I really like DW for two
things: Doing fast development of a sites baselayout and using the
DW-Template-System for medium-sized sites (too large to use pure hand-coded
pages and too small for using a CMS).

I have used it in all three ways (or rather attempted to) and have found
out that by creating my own templates by hand, I don't have to worry
with them anymore. But, when I open a base template in DW, it decides to
"fix" my HTML and I am back where I started. Hence, I don't use it. Some
of the people I work with live by it, but, they don't even know what
HTML stands for much less how to write it.

And it goes without saying that DW's ready made scripts are better off
in the trash can than in any page - inter or intra net.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Martin Kurz]

Randy Webb schrieb:

I would say, it depends on the way you're using DW. I really like DW
for two
things: Doing fast development of a sites baselayout and using the
DW-Template-System for medium-sized sites (too large to use pure
hand-coded
pages and too small for using a CMS).

I have used it in all three ways (or rather attempted to) and have found
out that by creating my own templates by hand, I don't have to worry
with them anymore. But, when I open a base template in DW, it decides to
"fix" my HTML and I am back where I started. Hence, I don't use it. Some
of the people I work with live by it, but, they don't even know what
HTML stands for much less how to write it.

And it goes without saying that DW's ready made scripts are better off
in the trash can than in any page - inter or intra net.

Strange, in what way did DW changed the code? I'm using DW this way since DW 4,
never noticed something like this in DW4, MX od MX2004. DW never changed any
code i've prepared by hand (at least without asking me before or getting the
order to do so). Even when giving some irregular code (or at least something DW
thinks it's irregular), i'm allways just getting the note, that there might be a
problem, but it's not changed when I'm ignoring this. But i don't remember if
there's a default for imported code handling i maybe changed...

But for quality reasons, hand-coding is surely allways the best choice (if all
people working on the site exactly know what they're doing).

greets,

martin

[nikki]

Randy Webb wrote:

I have used it in all three ways (or rather attempted to) and have found
out that by creating my own templates by hand, I don't have to worry
with them anymore. But, when I open a base template in DW, it decides to
"fix" my HTML and I am back where I started.

You can turn that "feature" off.
I know I do.

Nikki