Dreamweaver for developers.

[pziecina]

I did not really know were to post this, as it is not really an idea, or a discussion. Plus some of what i wish to say has been said before.

I read the following blog post by the creative cloud team, concerning Dreamweaver -

https://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/re-imagining-dreamweaver-the-inside-story-on-developing-for-de...

It talks about developing for developers, yet fails to define 'developer', we have already seen the new 'target user' defined as, 'the designer who wishes to code'. So we are left wondering still just who Dreamweaver is aimed at, and worse still who those making the decisions are targeting.

In the article, it says that developers do not want Dreamweaver to get in the way, whilst coding. Then it imposes the necessity of using sass just to get autoprefixing for css, which not only 'gets in the way', but imposes a completely unnecessary workflow on the developer, as there is no alternative provided by Dreamweaver. The article then says nothing about modern web development, and leaves the reader questioning if anyone knows what is happening in the Dreamweaver team, or even if there is a plan, when it comes to the modern web developers requirements.

In a previous 'idea' posted by someone called 'BUMMER', some interesting ideas are put forward, the trouble is I had heard all of them before, in another forum, previous to that person posting. So nothing original, and the question of the real identity of the poster, narrows significantly, (even to that of a Dw team member).

So here is my proposal, stop including the Brackets code editor and thinking it will do the job, it will not, as a free code editor it's fine, as something that is included in a paid for program it fails. If I am paying for something I do not just want an excellent code editor, I expect an excellent code editor. Too many features are missing from Brackets, and I'm not talking about multiple cursors, or linting, not even about the ability to use multiple languages. Dreamweaver is for the web, not for using with every other Adobe product. Brackets looks and feels like a free code editor, it does not look and feel like a professional paid for, code editor.

Development for the web these days, is no longer just about using code snippets for desktops browsers, it is also about mobile devices and coding sites that when used feel like dedicated apps, with all that entails. This means that developers use html, css and javascript for much more than jQuery UI items, and a javascript debugger is now an essential item.

Animations, are being done using css and javascript, just offering users the option to include an oam file, or the completely inadaquate css transforms panel is not good enough. Adobe we know is set in thinking only CC Animate should be used for anything more complexed than a simple 'roll-over', developers know that CC Animate is not up to the job for their requirements, and Dreamweaver should allow developers to code anything and everything that the W3C includes in its proposals and recommendations, this includes the creation of complexed webGL animations if they so wish. html canvas is part of the html5 specs, make coding for that in Dreamweaver part of the improvements, and guess what, it requies javascript, CC Animate has a debugger, Dreamweaver requires one also.

On the server side, yes you can include support for php7, but doing so without a php debugger is not covering even half the requirements for a server side php developer. Than what about databases, trying to code the sql for a database becomes an exersise in program switching, yes 3rd party extensions are available, if that is what you intend Dreamweaver users to use, put it in the documentation.

Up your game Dreamweaver, decide just who your user is, then offer them everything they require to do the job, without imposing silly limitations such a you did with autoprefixing, (only via sass indeed  !!!).

[osgood_]

I don't think even Adobe would consider DW is for professional javascript or php coders that is why it doesnt have any debugging tools and I dont think it will have in the near future either as DW does not have a big enough professional user base to merit the time needed to develop them. I wonder if including GIT is a bit of waste of time as well. Mabye my view of DW is warped by the kind of posts we see in the forum - I don't really see that many users/posters that I would consider remotely interested in anything other than the very basics. How many times do you see a post about SASS or LESS or debugging. You would think since its introduction of SASS/LESS there would be more using it if it's available. The reason they are not is they dont know what they are, or how to use them. GIT will deliver the same results in my opinion, very small return in relation to how long it will take to integrate. GIT is mainly for teams of developers, not the kind of DW developer who mostly builds small one off websites, in a single space environment. GIT is most likely overkill for those kinds of builders.

I think DW has found a level, a niche market and that IS NOT and NEVER will be the professional market. If it ever was for the professional market, as I suspect it might have been some considerable years ago, it lost traction against other more professional IDEs (It doesnt have a great reputation if you read what developers in other forums think, a lot start out using it but move on as they out grow it) but that's not to say its not a decent product aimed at the beginner/novice who just wants a web development product backed by a reputable company.

By introduicng a 3rd party code editor and not something that has been built from the ground up which serves the profesional developer better I think I can say in complete confidence it has abandoned the fight against its 'professional' competition. Is that so bad, I dont think so myself. As you said at some point you have to go where the money is and clearly the money is not in developing a product for the professional.

DW served me well as I grew my coding skills over many years so I cant complain but it was time to move on to explore other editors/IDEs. Fortunately I found one which suited my slkills and workflow, its not perfect (a little too bloated if I'm honest) but currently it has some nice features that are the best option for my workflow. Maybe one day DW will become my main stream choice again. You can never say never.

I would just forget DW, bash it if you want to as I do in the hope that it will up its game in terms of what you or I think is required but you and me are voices in the wilderness. It dont matter much to me - I can use any editor for my purposes.

I must at some stage give CC2017 a try and see for myself but I can get a good feel by the many posts I read and images posted of the interface what its like and capable of. I could use it, do I really want to when I think I have found a better option for now at least.

[pziecina]

I posted this just give my point of view, as discussions and feature requests become even more hidden to others over time, and yes, i know it is a waste of time doing so. In the article they say they talked to developers who no longer use Dreamweaver, it would be interesting to know if any of those they talked to changed their minds after using Dreamweaver 2017, or if like me they decided that the more they used it, the less they wanted to use it.

As for git, it is the one item that i think is worth while including, but as they do not want none Dreamweaver users testing it, or anything else in the pre-release version, I am very apprehensive about its integration. As Dw users will have no experiance in its use, unless they have used it in another program, or installed it as a stand alone program.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

As Dw users will have no experiance in its use, unless they have used it in another program, or installed it as a stand alone program.

There you go......no experience of SASS or LESS, they wont use it because its not something which is really required for the kind of DW demographic. GIT will be met with a simliar fanfare from the majority of DW users in my opinion.

Who seriously goes from another program to DW? Sublime, Atom, Visual Studio, Eclipse, Net Beans etc users arent making the trek to a paid for editor. No one is going the reverse way from Jet Brains products or the people who develop Zend Studio to DW, its a one way ticket, once your gone your gone from DW its going to be a monumental job to attract you back given the lack of features and the price you pay for it.

[pziecina]

You said that you must give Dw 2017 a try, which at least says that at some point in the past Dw was for you a good program. The problem as i see it is that ex-users may try a program they previously used once maybe twice again, and then only as a trial.

Most people move to a different program when the old program no longer fulfills basic requirements, not when it does not have the 'extras'. It is those basic requirements that Dw 2017 does not meet, and they can add all the extras they wish, no developer will move back to Dw untill the basic requirements of developers are met.

Mind you, that all depends on the Dw team and those advising them, knowing what the basic requirements are for web development now and in the future. It is certainly more than i have suggested.

[osgood_]

Sometimes I don't think its case of a problem with the program, it can also be after so many years using the same bit of software everything becomes less of a challenge and remarkably unexciting. I think for me I could quite easily go back to DW if I needed to.

I don't require things like debuggers as I shall never write a complex bit of javascript or php etc that would require the use of them. I would probably never have a requirement for GIT, maybe only to 'pretend' I was current. Never needed it in 15 years of web-development, my world hasn't crashed, why would I need such a thing now, strange. Not saying its not worthy but its not a critical inclusion in my workflow, its just an 'extra'.

I would find a simple autoprefixer hugley useful though as an option, that to me is critical as everyone needs to prefix their css, without the necessity to use SASS/LESS to manage multiple uneccessary files, whilst less need to debug. So you need to look at what is critical as opposed to what is desirable. I can't really say I'm missing much that would be desirable to my workflow.

A lot of the features that I have available to me in the IDE I'm currently using have perhaps if anything made me a worse/lazy coder because i'm now too dependent on 'automation'  to show me where the mistakes are and it does a pretty good job. Sometimes I think personal progress is slowed as a result of too much efficiency within a bit of software because it takes away a lot of the thinking process and lands you in a false sense of 'security'.

I was pretty happy with DWCS4 for years as it was a bare-bones editor which mostly required me to do the work rather than the program, but it became time to move on. If I had chosen a more 'efficient' bit of software earlier I may well have resorted to clicking and dragging Bootstrap onto the page making me a less qualified coder. I like being in control of what I put on a page as much as possible as it allows me to think, then produce rather than just hook up a few extensions and drag in a few snippets which are written by someone else much of which you don't understand. That's ok until it all goes wrong or your client requests something different then you realise you are no more skilful than the bloke that collects your weekly rubbish.

[pziecina]

I think what convinced me to move from Dw, and why I found Dw 2017 so bad to work with, is that my current ide includes everything in code completion that is supported by Edge, iOS Safari, and Android, in html, css and javascript, automatically in the update following there inclusion, plus extensions for everything Dw is trying to include now, and being extensions they are optional.

That is all included without me asking, people asking why i require it, and most importantly so called Dw experts saying no one will use it, or it should not be used for at least 20 years, (slight exaggeration, but not by much).

If those three browsers support it, it is included along with the tools i require to develop with them.