Now that Muse is defunct, what is the future of Dreamweaver?

[PintoSixty]

Will Dreamweaver still remain in Adobe's arsenal, or will it bite the dust in the very near future?  I used Muse to create sites for several clients, and it looks like I'll be forced to migrate these sites into Dreamweaver for any future changes and maintenance.  If Dreamweaver is on the chopping block, though, it would sure be nice to know now so that I can plan accordingly.

[B i r n o u]

if anyone has the answer, it has not yet emerged ... and this question has already been asked, long before Muse was officially put on the shelf, actually since CS6 we started to whisper (without much belief) and since CC2015 we are in great expectation as to the future of DW.

During the last broadcast of roadmap, nothing was convincing. we add novelties ... without knowing why? ... and resilient bugs, cumbersome execution, the real non-stability, make all of us, who produce sites to make a living ... have either a panoply of spare, or we are under CS6 ... maximum 2015 ... but 2017, 2018 and certainly 2019 are totaly unusable ...

[pziecina]

I would not advise trying to use Dreamweaver to maintain or update a Muse site.

A better option would be to continue to use Muse until you can convert the sites to normal html, css, javascript. Muse will continue to be available as part of your CC subscription, it will just never be developed further. It may also be an idea to at least look at the Adobe Spark pre-release builds, as that appears to be Adobes recommended option, though with Adobes record of support for anything web, and given what they have done with Muse, I personally would be very cautious about using Spark.

The main problem with trying to use Dreamweaver, is that the Muse code is almost unreadable, especially if you have used any plug-ins/widgets. For Muse users who do wish to try going in the 'convert to Dreameaver' direction, I would ask if the Adobe forums could add a separate forum section just for those people. With the code base of Muse being so bad to read, especially when plug-ins/widgets have been used, having one place to go may help ex Muse users in the conversion to a code based solution.

[pedigree1]

@pziecina

For me, your answer misses the point - I appreciate you weren't addressing me so no offence intended.  I have Muse sites and am now looking for an alternative. My question is, is it worth me investing my time and money in learning to use DW or is that likely to go the same way as Muse? I fully appreciate that Muse code cannot be read by DW (or anything else for that matter) but I am going to have to rebuild from scratch at some point in the future anyway, so why wouldn't I use DW? I appreciate that the learning for DW is in a different league from Muse but I may be prepared to do that if I had confidence that DW was going to be around for what, another 10 years?

Can anyone give me that confidence?

It may be that I am asking the impossible...

Regards.

[pziecina]

Providing you learn modern coding requirements, and don't rely on any Dw features except coding help, then even if they do at some point drop Dreamweaver it will not matter, as code is code and can be used with any code editor or ide.

[pedigree1]

Thanks, that makes sense. Could be time for me go back to school...

[BenPleysier]

Despite what others are saying, the published Muse site is proper HTML, CSS and JS, albeit, not in the format that experienced web developers would aspire to. As such, the published version can be ported into and maintained with Dreamweaver. The consequence is that the site cannot be returned to a Muse environment.

As opposed to Muse, using Dreamweaver requires a working knowledge of HTML and CSS with some JS knowledge.

[W_J_T]

BenPleysier  wrote

Despite what others are saying, the published Muse site is proper HTML, CSS and JS, albeit, not in the format that experienced web developers would aspire to.

That's a pretty interesting comment, brace yourself. 😉

[pziecina]

W_J_T  wrote

BenPleysier   wrote

Despite what others are saying, the published Muse site is proper HTML, CSS and JS, albeit, not in the format that experienced web developers would aspire to.

That's a pretty interesting comment, brace yourself. 😉

Cannot argue against the comment, because it is true.

The problem is though, trying to work out what is happening and then modify the css and js files, makes changing the bootstrap css and js files look like something you could teach a 10 year old who has never coded before.

[W_J_T]

BenPleysier   wrote

Despite what others are saying, the published Muse site is proper HTML, CSS and JS, albeit, not in the format that experienced web developers would aspire to.

pziecina  wrote

Cannot argue against the comment, because it is true. The problem is though, trying to work out what is happening and then modify the css and js files.

I am sure you have observed and kept track of it in contrast to myself. As I just looked looked at some Muse sites after the EOL announcement, not really knowing much of it. What I found were sites littered with inline css, absolute overuse, and other non conforming methods and practices with CSS and in the HTML alike. I was unsure if the app or user did those things, but would not consider various things proper or practical.

[osgood_]

pedigree1  wrote

@pziecina

For me, your answer misses the point - I appreciate you weren't addressing me so no offence intended.  I have Muse sites and am now looking for an alternative. My question is, is it worth me investing my time and money in learning to use DW or is that likely to go the same way as Muse? I fully appreciate that Muse code cannot be read by DW (or anything else for that matter) but I am going to have to rebuild from scratch at some point in the future anyway, so why wouldn't I use DW? I appreciate that the learning for DW is in a different league from Muse but I may be prepared to do that if I had confidence that DW was going to be around for what, another 10 years?

Can anyone give me that confidence?

It may be that I am asking the impossible...

Regards.

How long is a piece of string.

The problem is Adobe is struggling to keep up with future web-development trends. Instead of persisting it often decides there is no more legs in the product and closes it down, without any real consideration for its customers. Its happened in the past and will happen again with many web-develoment programs, not just ones bought to the market by Adobe. Many, many have sadly fallen by the wayside over the past decade. Web-development is a continuously shifting environment and the only safe way to stay afloat is to learn to code, then any html editor will do the job, its that simple. If you cut corners and are intending to be in this for the long-run then you could well be setting yourself up for a nasty surprise in the future.

[pedigree1]

Thanks. I've got the message from this discussion and others. Learn to code.

[osgood_]

pedigree1  wrote

Thanks. I've got the message from this discussion and others. Learn to code.

It really is a wise decision albeit it takes time and effort.

Bootstrap 3 users have to now familiarise themselves with new Bootstrap 4 technics and classes, which ia always a pain. Others will be working in both v3 and v4 trying to remember which class is native to which version. In any automated environment you put yourself in the hands of the provider and if that provider decides to change things you are not in control.

DW unfortunately is an extendable program where many developers rely on extensions, which is all well and good until DW shuts up shop. Yes you will have extension developers say DW will work for many years to come, it perhaps will but it no longer receives any future updates, so those who use and depend upon it stagnate quite quickly. That's probably ok for your amateur developer BUT if any full-time web-developer is using it as a front-line bit of their kit for automated code writing and its their livlihood at stake then maybe they should seriously think again and at least have a plan B in position.

[tiff_meek]

I have to disagree. We don't need to code to use a computer. Don't need to code to use a design program like InDesign. Don't need to code to operate a robot. This world is full of digital technologies that are presented to users with a 'user interface' so that the average person can use them. The web should be no different. WYSIWYG technologies for website development and/or design are the way of the future. Website design/development should be in the hands of designers, not developers. This is the only way in which we will develop and maintain a vivid internet world, rather than the 'stock standard templated' environment we have been bored to tears by over the last few years. That's my view, and I'm a web designer/graphic designer so I'm no doubt EXTREMELY bias!! LOL! Cheers everyone.

[B i r n o u]

either if I try to put code every where... either if code is not needed... (I use a Raspberry to pilot my wood pellet heating)... I completly 100% agree with you... one should be able to use graphics interface to control what happens under the covers...

is not that what graphic interfaces (Bozniak among others) have brought to the use of computers ... click with a mouse on an element and move it to a trash instead of typing some obscur sentence... rm -f -r {file-name}...?

to directly mousing to draw a block in in design instead of writing / csquare {newpath 0 0 moveto ... and so on ...

I am 100% in agreement that designers must be able to use a program to create interfaces and websites ... no code is needed...  plug-in developers to provide gateways to manage complexities ... and publishers IDE to implement tools that lay down HTML / CSS code that respects standards and open wide the doors for third part developer

[Preran]

I haven't heard of any such plan for Dreamweaver. I will check with the product management team to see if they have anything else to add.

Thanks,

Preran

[Nancy OShea]

This is not the first time Adobe  have retired products and it certainly won't be the last.  Think back to  PageMill,  GoLive, Fireworks, Director, Encore, Contribute, LiveCycle, Edge, Course Builder, e-Learning suite....  all gone now.   As industries & technologies change, so too must the software we use.  In 2020, Flash, Muse and Business Catalyst will reach EOL. 

Dreamweaver remains an excellent tool for site management  and code editing.   If you can write your own code,   you will never be a slave to your software.   But non-coders will always have trouble when the software they rely on stops being developed. 

[pziecina]

The problem with everything everyone is saying is that it does not answer the original question, "what is the future for Dreamweaver"?

I doubt if the Muse team even knew that Muse was to be discontinued, untll a few weeks before the announcement. So even if the Dreamweaver managment was to say that there are no plans to drop Dreamweaver, how much could we rely on that being true.

We, (in this forum) have been saying for months, if not years, that Dw user are abandoning Dw for other code editors/ide's, (though we do not really know, and only basing our assumptions on what Dw offers). If we are thinking Dw is finished, and the Muse users had no idea it was to be discontinued, it will take someone much higher up in the Adobe managment chain than the Dw team is, to restore any confidence in Dw's future.

[Preran · Accepted solution]

Like I promised, I checked with the senior management about the future of Dreamweaver, and their answer was that they see no reason to stop developing the product. Dreamweaver will continue to exist, period.

I understand that no amount of reassurance will suffice, but I do want to put other Dreamweaver users visiting this post at ease.

I am marking my answer as correct only because I want this question to be addressed upfront for visitors that will not care to read the rest of the discussion. If any of you feel strongly against that, let me know, and I will take care of unmarking it.

Thanks,

Preran

[pziecina]

@Preran

Thank you Preran,

As you say no amount of reasurance will help, but at least you asked .

I just hope that the Dw team take note of what happened to Muse, and learn from the announcement that they cannot ignore what is happening in modern web development. I also hope that Adobe in general (including acp's) will be more supportive of web developers requirerments.

[W_J_T]

pziecina  wrote

I just hope that the Dw team take note of what happened to Muse, and learn from the announcement that they cannot ignore what is happening in modern web development. I also hope that Adobe in general (including acp's) will be more supportive of web developers requirerments.

I thought the below comment was pretty accurate ...

rayek.elfin  wrote

If history teaches us two things is that:

1) Adobe doesn't really understand the web or its developers, designers, and asset creators;

2) Adobe will introduce new promising looking applications, only to pull the rug from under their users more often than not.

😉

[pziecina]

W_J_T  wrote

If history teaches us two things is that:

1) Adobe doesn't really understand the web or its developers, designers, and asset creators;

2) Adobe will introduce new promising looking applications, only to pull the rug from under their users more often than not.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record.

I've been saying the first one for years, and no one from Adobe, (or Dw) has ever answered. I'm also sorry to say that at some point in the future the second point will also repeat itself, though Adobe is not alone in doing so.

[tiff_meek]

pziecina  wrote

W_J_T   wrote

If history teaches us two things is that:

1) Adobe doesn't really understand the web or its developers, designers, and asset creators;

2) Adobe will introduce new promising looking applications, only to pull the rug from under their users more often than not.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record.

I've been saying the first one for years, and no one from Adobe, (or Dw) has ever answered. I'm also sorry to say that at some point in the future the second point will also repeat itself, though Adobe is not alone in doing so.

Adobe doesn't need to understand web developers, it needs to understand how to build a fully capable website using a WYSIWYG interface. We don't need 'neat' code anymore now that we have fast and super fast internet speeds. We don't need to optimise graphics up the wazoo anymore for the same reason. We need a way for creatives to create on the internet without being confined to the 'black and white' world of the coding tech heads. There is nothing more depressing than creating the same old 'template' websites over and over again, when we creatives KNOW that there is so much more out there that can be done, so much more we could be doing to create engaging experiences online. But more often than not we have to stick within the boundaries of the limited skillset of the average web developer who knows only a small fraction of what is possible and has learned to implement only a fraction of that. Or we have to go to a top end provider to get the latest and pay an absolute fortune for the privilege. And typically the privilege we pay for is simply the 'copy and paste' of code from a previous job - and once done the developer goes to the beach for two weeks, then comes back and invoices the client for their suntan. Designers are sick and tired of hearing "We can do that sure, but it'll take about two weeks to implement" when we know full well the developer has done exactly the same piece of coding for many many previous clients and will probably spend an hour implementing the exact same thing on our site. It's about time those days were done don't you think? I know there are a lot of developers who will resent what I'm saying but I've been in the game a very long time so I KNOW what goes on. Designers the world over NEED a tool like Muse, and so does the end consumer. It is a better and more productive way to innovate and provide web design/development services, and MUCH more cost effective. Consumers should be investing in innovation and design, rather than investing in the endless duplication and re-writing of code.

[B i r n o u]

as much as I agree that GUIs need to make it easier to put content in, and that the hood does not have to be open to code, I do not agree on this duality, apparent, between 'us' and 'them' ...

we are all web developers, with business sectors that are sometimes opposed, sometimes complementary, sometimes redundant ... but one does not necessarily go without the other ...

caricature developers as glue copiers is as reductive, even as insulting, as what has been said previously through various threads concerning users of Muse ...

in one way or the other, I do not think that judging, reducing the other to uselessness, or deceit, allows everyone to be better perceived. To have different opinions is one thing, to say that his opinion premium is something else.

similarly I do not agree on the fact that it is no longer necessary to produce a code that is clean, given the size of networks and bandwidths ... that would mean ... hmmm ... what is the point of embellishing with color, the screens produce different colors, and a large part of printers still print in black and white ...

let's be constructive ... let's try to define the needs of tools that web developers need ... in terms of graphics quality and integrations, code quality, but also metadata, accessibility, architecture, optimization, SEO, and ... most sharing...

[tiff_meek]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

as much as I agree that GUIs need to make it easier to put content in, and that the hood does not have to be open to code, I do not agree on this duality, apparent, between 'us' and 'them' ...

we are all web developers, with business sectors that are sometimes opposed, sometimes complementary, sometimes redundant ... but one does not necessarily go without the other ...

caricature developers as glue copiers is as reductive, even as insulting, as what has been said previously through various threads concerning users of Muse ...

in one way or the other, I do not think that judging, reducing the other to uselessness, or deceit, allows everyone to be better perceived. To have different opinions is one thing, to say that his opinion premium is something else.

similarly I do not agree on the fact that it is no longer necessary to produce a code that is clean, given the size of networks and bandwidths ... that would mean ... hmmm ... what is the point of embellishing with color, the screens produce different colors, and a large part of printers still print in black and white ...

let's be constructive ... let's try to define the needs of tools that web developers need ... in terms of graphics quality and integrations, code quality, but also metadata, accessibility, architecture, optimization, SEO, and ... most sharing...

You have to forgive me. As a designer I have just lost Muse and this is a major blow, as it is to a whole host of designers across the globde. My reaction was to a group of people on this forum being critical of the idea that Muse was a legitimate tool in the world and basically telling everyone to 'wake up to themselves'. I am simply putting forward a counter argument from the perspective of a designer. As a designer I am one of Adobe's principal clients. We designers need the tools to do our job. Our job is to create. We cannot create unless the world provides us with the tools. It is an endless frustration to a creative to have to work within a 'technical' space. Technical people 'tend' to lack vision. They 'tend' to think black and white. They 'tend' to think in terms of what is and has been possible, rather than what could be possible. This is a difficult space for designers. We need the freedom to innovate, and a canvas on which to express ourselves and our work. This is not a criticism of developers. It is absolutely necessary that they think the way they do in order to be great at what they do. The internet has been the domain of the developers, and the look and feel of the internet reflects this. At this point in history the internet is crammed full of 'templated' or technical websites. The potential for creativity is lost in this 'technical' space. The internet is the global brain. It is meant to be a reflection of humanity as it stands. But it isn't. It's a lack-lustre space full of information delivered site after site after site in exactly the same way (for the most part). It is missing the creativity that we see in other arenas. And this is because technical people 'tend' not to be creative, and creatives 'tend' not to be technical. The internet has become a sausage factory. Muse, or programs like it, are fundamental for our capacity to develop the internet to its full potential - to allow creatives to innovate and create immensely engaging experiences within an affordable budget. Muse is/was necessary. And it still is. This is my view. Cheers Tiff