What's in Store for Dreamweaver's next release

https://forums.adobe.com/people/john+stephanites  wrote You guys will be back! You can't give it up that easy.

It's getting less and less interesting to develop, we have the w3c creating all these new features that no one in the Dw team thinks we should or want to use. Why they think we will not use them, is often because the ones representing Dw users to the Dw team are saying we should not use them, cannot use them, do not know how to use them, do not want to learn how to use them, and their arguments for not using them are often so stupid, that they often shows a complete lack of knowledge about what they are doing, and what is happening in the wider web development world.

As an example lets take the one about not using polyfills, and having to support old IE browsers, so apart from the dangers of using old browsers and operating systems, that has been demonstrated by the malware attack this weekend, we have the lack of understanding that the html5 and the media-query shivs are polyfills.

Then we have this head long rush by Dw to use open source solutions for everything. Open source even when it caries a well known name, is created by individuals who are not employed by those well known names. This means that nothing is included in them that those individuals creating the feature does not want, and even worse, if they do not want it, no one gets it included.

Why does Dw include sass or less, why does it include Brackets as its code editor, or Bootstrap as its rwd framework, and why is it including git. More importantly, why is it building them into Dw's core, and not as extensions. Users cannot edit the sass/less files required by bootstrap, and then link to the cdn files to optimize the download file size. Somewhere in those sass/less files are the css rules for just about everything that the Dw user is creating a seperate file for.

If a Dw user can code, then Dw is redundant. Using Brackets with the git extension and a free ftp program, will be no different to using Dw in the future. When bootstrap moves to v4 the default layout used by bootstrap will be flexbox, Dw is anti flexbox, and the majority of the decision makers have no idea how to use it, so if Dw does update bootstrap to v4 at some time, the user had better hope that the starter pages match their requirements, because creating a page from scratch in Dw will not be easy.

Dw used to be a nice simple tool to use, and even those like myself who mainly code appreciated the helper features and dialogues, CS6 included most of what was required for code hints and completion at the time it was released. Now Dw 2017 has less that 30% of the w3c specs supported in any meaningful way, and sometimes what is included is incorrectly supported. The excuse for not including anything new from the specs, is that it would be a mamouth task to do so. Well not if they had done so bit by bit since CS6 was released.

Anyone wish me to continue, or anyone willing to reply from the Dw team?

I don't think they will sell BC, as that is the upgrade step for Muse users to produce a fully functional ecomm site. The main complaint i have with BC is that it must be hosted on Adobe servers, and is an Adobe proprietary spec, which although not all bad, it does mean that you cannot use the full skill set in another product.

My views on Dw are probably so well known, that it has become boring for others to read them, and boring for me to repeat them.

What does often puzzle me is everyone thinking that Dw, (and other Adobe products) is not available to more than single or small buisness users. Medium to large companies use Adobe products, and thinking and keeping the main user target for Dw as students/beginners in web design/development, means that a large section of Adobe product users is ignored.

Also how does one file feature requests, when the a major part of the problem, is not just the way it works and the lack of good W3C spec support, but is also, "the way it feels"?

pziecina  wrote Dw is now becomming just a collection of badly implemented open source items, that are included in an 'all in one package'.

Surely its reached a stage whereby the only element that's keeping new people buying is the visual conception, that is probably its best asset at the moment and one I have used in the past to navigate around the code more effectively than in editors which don't have a visual environment. If free editors had this it would have little which they didn't offer. DW 1 Others 0