how can I use the latest version of bootstrap on dreamweaver?

[tim cross]

I am new to using Dreamweaver. I have started to use bootstrap and on there site I have noticed the latest version of the software is bootstrap-4.1.3.

Is there away to add this to dreamweaver cc and if so how do I do this?

The reason I want the latest version is bootstrap-4.1.3 has got some new templates which I would like to be able to use when creating my site

Many thanks

Tim

[ALsp]

LOL. Perhaps the French make delicious interpretation of pizza, but I'm afraid Neapolitan Pizza is an appellation with strict rules... like Champagne or Roquefort, or Parma Ham, et al.

Bootstrap is something else entirely of course. And it tastes horrible, too... like shoe leather.

[osgood_]

Energize  wrote

I really don't see what is constructive about hijacking the thread with this other nonsense.

Probably because its relevant in the way the development world is going. People who use these workflows can't call it a good approach, they might be able to call it a 'cheap approach' or a 'I dont know how to code' approach, which I can accept, but dont tell me using over-bloated workflows, especailly in a professional capacity, is professional or people who claim to be professional but use niche code, anchored soley to one product to get the job done isnt at some stage going to end in tears.

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

Anyone that uses the code below, and thats just a very small snippet,  is a complete amatuer or desperate for money. These days I dont know what it is. On another forum they are calling themselves 'pros' when most are part-time policemen, firemen, pizza-makers, candle-stick makers or just retired and cant retain any information these days. Pants.

What's wrong with retired people .

The question is, 'how much are people charging clients', or 'how much are clients willing to pay'.

In the Muse forum, I remember someone saying that £200 - £500 was what clients expected to pay, so hand coding was not an option. Maybe it is as I have said previously, just a question of money vs quality or time. If a client wants a simple site, I wonder what advantages any framework, (or drag & drop site creation program) has over many hosting providers site creation tools.

If someone can do something for nothing, using just a template, (which may be better than many commercial templates) and a site creation tool from a hosting provider, then maybe it is time for developers to look to the next level up, (or even higher) of what they can offer. Or maybe too many are just like me, and have another guaranteed income, so can push the prices down if they wish to, as web development is just something to do in their spare time.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

osgood_   wrote

What's wrong with retired people .

Nothing wrong with retired people, its the retired people that have burnt-out but still trying to emulate what they previously did using dubious methods whilst trying to claim its still a profesional approach. At least be honest. If I used Bootstrap I'd be the first to admit its a poor bloated approach but its cheap and cheerful - that dont make it professional, just convienient, in a throw away world. Its the people who deny its garbage that irritate me. 

I mean I use jQuery and I admit that's a poor mans version of using pure javascript. Nothing wrong if you realise what you're using is not as good as other methods/workflows. The key in a professional capacity is trying to move yourself to another level, so I mostly use vue js now for many components, not just accepting stagnation and failure, to the point I have to rely on others to dictate what I can or cant use, based on ones own failure to learn basic workflows.

pziecina  wrote

In the Muse forum, I remember someone saying that £200 - £500 was what clients expected to pay, so hand coding was not an option. Maybe it is as I have said previously, just a question of money vs quality or time. If a client wants a simple site, I wonder what advantages any framework, (or drag & drop site creation program) has over many hosting providers site creation tools.

Well they must be the kind of mostly unskilled 'developers' I'm talking about, infiltrating the profession and the route cause of bringing prices down - the candlestick maker, the part-time fireman etc are the only people that could afford to knockout websites for £200 - £500 a pop. If it was your only source of income you would have to pop out at least 1, if not more websites a week, (that aint going to happen) to even afford to live in a caravan in the UK.

pziecina  wrote

Or maybe too many are just like me, and have another guaranteed income, so can push the prices down if they wish to, as web development is just something to do in their spare time.

I can afford to do it for nothing these days but I'm still a professonal (at least at the moment I like to see myself as so) and there is no way, even when I could do something for nothing, that I'm going to be another leech sucking the life out of an already sick industry.

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

...

pziecina   wrote

Or maybe too many are just like me, and have another guaranteed income, so can push the prices down if they wish to, as web development is just something to do in their spare time.

I can afford to do it for nothing these days but I'm still a professonal (at least at the moment I like to see myself as so) and there is no way, even when I could do something for nothing, that I'm going to be another leech sucking the life out of an already sick industry.

I will only work at what I think is the 'appropriate rate' for what I do, to do it for less only devalues me and the profession as a whole.

My point is, that these days everyone and their dog thinks that building a web presence is easy, with a web site just being one part of the whole, (social media is another part) few actually 'get it right' though, so many are now offering to build it cheap, or being told they can build it themselves without any knowledge. Also when they compare what they have produced to other sites only the visual appearance matters, functionality and code are not considered important.

Individuality or a unique site as part of an overal buisness strategy to present to clients is not something that many think about, especially when it comes to web development. For many developers the possibilities of design and functionality are stuck in the past. It may be that they are told that something is not possible, when it is. It may even be that it is not possible for them to do, unless a program does it for them.

Just ask about using srcset, css shapes, animations, etc, in other forums, and you will be told that it/they are not required, or to use something else. Much is no longer understood regarding web development, and even what was written 10-20 years ago is being quoted as 'all you need to know' on the subject, instead of being reviewed and rewritten if required.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

I will only work at what I think is the 'appropriate rate' for what I do, to do it for less only devalues me and the profession as a whole.

Spot on. I was trying to say exactly that but couldn't find the appropriate words. I might even have to admit failure and start using Bootstrap now my brain appears to be in melt down

pziecina  wrote

My point is, that these days everyone and their dog thinks that building a web presence is easy, with a web site just being one part of the whole, (social media is another part) few actually 'get it right' though, so many are now offering to build it cheap, or being told they can build it themselves without any knowledge. Also when they compare what they have produced to other sites only the visual appearance matters, functionality and code are not considered important.

It's the finer points that count in the end or are the ones usually missing in the case of a lot of automated websites. I'm not always saying I get it 100% right, never, there is always room for improvement but when I eventually see something that has been built by automation I can usually find things quickly which should have been considered and implemeted as BASIC requirements yet have been forgotten, ignored, overlooked. I think that's where the difference lies and yet unless you work at the top level most clients don't appreciate its the finer points that proivde the end user with a better experience.

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

I think that's where the difference lies and yet unless you work at the top level most clients don't appreciate its the finer points that proivde the end user with a better experience.

I don't think it is just at the top level that matters, it comes down to client understanding. Unless developers, (or those above them) talk to cients and explain what is required and why, just like in other professions, then they will always think web development is not important.

I'm not saying that everyone can simply up their rates, but offering to do it cheap just to get work, is also not very wise, as clients then look at 'cheap' as being the norm.

[Nancy OShea]

Whatever is happening in "another forum"  probably isn't relevant here.   So why even mention it?

The question here is how to upgrade to Bootstrap version 4.1.3.   Dreamweaver hasn't updated to the latest f Bootstrap or jQuery and probably won't catch up for a while.  

I

Meanwhile,  the recommended  Content Delivery Networks for the latest Bootstrap, Font Awesome, Bootswatch  ​ and  jQuery can be found at the links below.

• https://www.bootstrapcdn.com/
• jQuery CDN

[BenPleysier]

osgood_  wrote

That's because its complete crap.

Anyone that uses the code below, and thats just a very small snippet,  is a complete amatuer or desperate for money. These days I dont know what it is. On another forum they are calling themselves 'pros' when most are part-time policemen, firemen, pizza-makers, candle-stick makers or just retired and cant retain any information these days. Pants.

<ul class="navbar-nav">

<li class="nav-item active"> <a class="nav-link" href="#">Home</a> </li>

<li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link" href="#">Menu 2</a> </li>

<li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link" href="#">Menu 3</a> </li>

<li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link" href="#">Menu 4</a> </li>

</ul>

Laziness I think. I just read that its too much bother to find the right icon on Font Awesome and thats why this particular chap hasnt used it up until its been included as a plugin..........not that the Font Awesome website doesnt have a search facility. Seriously you couldnt make this up if you tried....too lazy to insert a link to a cdn or just plain ignorant and cant be bothered to use a search facility. WTF are we breeding these days.....zombies.

I mean shiteeee they have just been given access to an API plugin.....well finally caught up with those that have been connecting to APIs for a few years. Its like observing some kind of awakening.

Knowing your exaggeration of facts, I'll read your crap line as rodent droppings (little bits of crap - not complete crap).

As for the code referenced to, I proudly use it and I am neither an "amatuer" (sic) or desperate for money. I am a retiree who, like part-time policemen, firemen, pizza-makers. and candle-stick makers have joined the graphics community and IT specialists to develop websites. Do they all have the same skills to produce a website? I will not even go near who determines the skills level required to produce a website. Which leads me to ask, which category do you belong to? From memory, I believe it was typesetting.

Then what is laziness? While some people spend time searching a Font Awesome website, others use a point and click method. I think of it as productivity.

Nobody is denying that API's have been used with great imagination over the past. Even the Spry framework had an API module. I, like half the world, have been using API's for payment gateways. Does your remark mean that "the other forum" should not have been given access to an API plugin? Can you name a web authoring tool that has such a plugin? I can and it's called Dreamweaver, see here https://www.dmxzone.com/go/33294/app-connect-api-data-source

I guess that the positives can be easily overlooked by the negatives. Oh well, on with building web sites for my clients.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

Which leads me to ask, which category do you belong to? From memory, I believe it was typesetting.

Graphic design - there is a least an ounce of correlation, which can't be said for yourself, or the candle-stick maker etc

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

Then what is laziness? While some people spend time searching a Font Awesome website, others use a point and click method. I think of it as productivity.

Definition of laziness to me is when a person has no idea of what they are using and more so how it works, especially if they claim to be professional. They are the ones that are usually in no postion to solve anything themsleves, even the very basics, unless their hand is held.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

Does your remark mean that "the other forum" should not have been given access to an API plugin? 

No of course not. I'm just suggesting that it is a fairly basic procedure for a 'professional' to have included, without a plugin A lot of your other forum members are claiming to be professional or want to be known as 'pros', obviously clearly not IF they have to wait for a plugin. Plugin itself is fine.

[ALsp]

Energize  wrote

Of course I'm wrong you're not abusing your ACP position to promote your wares, yet you seem to take every opportunity to direct people away from Bootstrap and suggest 'other' methods

I suggest that because I believe that Bootstrap sucks. I think I deserve the right to do so based on a lot of reasons that I'm sure you'll disagree with... but I will continue to recommend NOT USING BOOTSTRAP. You can live with it or continue to be obnoxious. You have every right to behave how you see fit... or unfit.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

Could the fact that so many frequent contributors to this forum have sanctioned and endorsed "the Bootstrap way" have anything to do with it?

I'm not going to agree or disagree with that one AL, as I am paid all my pension and my retainer fee no matter what happens. That meens I don't have to think 'time is money', or have anyone to answer to, but the end users, but the 'what is possible', and the 'avoiding the looks and feels the same as everything else', are both what I question the ability of bootstrap to change.

What is possible -

Bootstrap no matter what it is used for, limits the end users experiance, as every site that uses it ends up with the problem of it -

                'Looks and feels the same' somehow syndrom.

[Jon Fritz]

DW does include responsive, non-bootstrap starter templates.

There are 9 BS options to 7 non-BS options.

The code isn't perfect by any means, and doesn't take advantage of Flex or Grid, but it's only 400 bloated format css lines and makes a heck of a lot more sense to the average code monkey than Bootstrap does.

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jon+Fritz+II  wrote

DW does include responsive, non-bootstrap starter templates.

There are 9 BS options to 7 non-BS options.

The code isn't perfect by any means, and doesn't take advantage of Flex or Grid, but it's only 400 bloated format css lines and makes a heck of a lot more sense to the average code monkey than Bootstrap does.

The problem I find with Dw, is that modern methods of writing not just starter pages, but components as well, are still stuck in the days when everyone, (myself included) was still trying to find the best way(s) to use html5 and everything that came after css 2.1. It was for everyone a difficult, (so ignore) experiance, or a time to learn again the enjoyment of coding for the web.

We can say what we like about the Eric Myers created starter pages, (think it was Dw MX) but the one thing they did do, was start many Dw users on the path of both learning and using css for layouts.

Now we have so many possibilities of using html5 and css(3), but nothing from Dw to help users in learning and using them. Somewhere since the introduction of CC,( or possibly since CS5) Dw stoped helping users, and became a 'use this, that, or forget it' program.

Even suggestions to create Dw specific tutorials fall on fallow ground, (maybe just as well, as Dw does not support much of what is required).

[ALsp]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jon+Fritz+II  wrote

DW does include responsive, non-bootstrap starter templates.

There are 9 BS options to 7 non-BS options.

The code isn't perfect by any means, and doesn't take advantage of Flex or Grid, but it's only 400 bloated format css lines and makes a heck of a lot more sense to the average code monkey than Bootstrap does.

Thanks Jon. I didn't even realize it. They are, as I think you implied, nothing to write home about, though 😉