What's in Store for Dreamweaver's next release

[haleyt88803336]

Does anyone know what future features and functions will be in the next Dreamweaver release of update ?

Just curious

[pziecina]

The only thing anyone can tell you is git support.

Anything else would be covered by NDA, so no one can say. Hopefully they will fix all the problems, but personally I would say look at Brackets, see what extensions for major open source projects it has, and those are most likely to be incorporated at some point.

Dw is now becomming just a collection of badly implemented open source items, that are included in an 'all in one package'. If it is anything new to do with W3C items, (code hints/completion) that you are interested in, then if it is in Brackets but not in Dw, it should be in the next Dw version, bugs, incorrect format and all.

[osgood_]

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

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

If free editors had this it would have little which they didn't offer. DW 1 Others 0

Not a free editor by the one i use does come complete with a visual tool, that i can use, and open projects in both.

One can create visually the layout using css grids, flexbox, tables, multi-column or using more traditional methods. It has a visual css animations creation tool, items for html5, downloadable fonts, css, etc, etc.

Cost wise, not much more than the Dw subscription.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

osgood_   wrote

If free editors had this it would have little which they didn't offer. DW 1 Others 0

Not a free editor by the one i use does come complete with a visual tool, that i can use, and open projects in both.

One can create visually the layout using css grids, flexbox, tables, multi-column or using more traditional methods. It has a visual css animations creation tool, items for html5, downloadable fonts, css, etc, etc.

Cost wise, not much more than the Dw subscription.

Whats that one again Paula, is it a commercial one? Is it Visual Studio Pro?

[pziecina]

Visual studio pro.

The normal Dw user would be unable to use it though, as it is the application creation tool, and without knowing code it would be impossible to know what to do with the code it creates. It also does not do anything like the jQuery UI components, but as all the components are html/css based that i do, and many none point and click developers are now going down the same route, that is not a problem.

All javascript, (and one can instal the jQuery code hint extension) and server-side code, must be done in the main code editor. So the workflow and experiance required is not typical Dw user friendly.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Visual studio pro.

The normal Dw user would be unable to use it though, as it is the application creation tool, and without knowing code it would be impossible to know what to do with the code it creates. It also does not do anything like the jQuery UI components, but as all the components are html/css based that i do, and many none point and click developers are now going down the same route, that is not a problem.

All javascript, (and one can instal the jQuery code hint extension) and server-side code, must be done in the main code editor. So the workflow and experiance required is not typical Dw user friendly.

This one?

Visual Studio IDE, Code Editor, Team Services, & Mobile Center

[pziecina]

That's the one.

The program called 'Blend' comes with it, and is the visual application creation tool. It is not well advertised, and takes almost as much time to learn as the main ide.

VS Pro, and Blend is primarily aimed at those working with .net, but html, css and javascript is extreamly well supported, and it is that support that i use to compare with Dw, the Blend css animations creation feature, i have found can be extreamly helpful when creating css driven ui components.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

That's the one.

The program called 'Blend' comes with it, and is the visual application creation tool. It is not well advertised, and takes almost as much time to learn as the main ide.

VS Pro, and Blend is primarily aimed at those working with .net, but html, css and javascript is extreamly well supported, and it is that support that i use to compare with Dw, the Blend css animations creation feature, i have found can be extreamly helpful when creating css driven ui components.

OK, might give it a go when I get bored with the one I'm currently using. I get bored frequently these days.

[pziecina]

If you are working with php, the extension for that must be paid for, (you have been warned ).

[pziecina]

Forgot to say, wait until Edge supports the new css grids spec, as it will then certainly be included in the following Blend update. It may be included earlier, as anything supported by IE11/Edge, iOS Safari, and Android, (Chrome) is automatically included asap.

[john_stephanites]

I've been using Cloud 9 and Coda 2. What is great about 9 is it is browser based and that is awesome. Coda 2 is great that it syncs across everything. I have it on my laptop, Desktop, iPad and, though don't use it, my iPhone. It syncs all your projects which is awesome and works. It is stuff like this that DW needs to do. To get git should have been way down the list. It is way to easy to use Sourcetree or the GitHub app. What are they thinking? They need to catch up. I was a big fan and now by it working so poorly I am starting to rethink my whole CC subscription. Really for what I do the only thing keeping me around at this point is BC and I think they are about to sell that. We shall see.

[pziecina]

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"?

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/john+stephanites  wrote

I've been using Cloud 9 and Coda 2. What is great about 9 is it is browser based and that is awesome. Coda 2 is great that it syncs across everything. I have it on my laptop, Desktop, iPad and, though don't use it, my iPhone. It syncs all your projects which is awesome and works. It is stuff like this that DW needs to do. To get git should have been way down the list. It is way to easy to use Sourcetree or the GitHub app. What are they thinking? They need to catch up. I was a big fan and now by it working so poorly I am starting to rethink my whole CC subscription. Really for what I do the only thing keeping me around at this point is BC and I think they are about to sell that. We shall see.

Never used Cloud 9 but if it suits your workflow why not.

I started using Coda 2 and at one point it was a very good IDE but it got left to 'rot' and not updated that frequently so I, like many, moved on to something more up-to-date. Just recently the people at Panic I think have committed to writing Coda 3 from the ground up, that remains to be seen. It will be a long term development process as Coda 2 fell so far behind in terms of modern day web development. In its day it did have some nice features. One can only hope Coda 3, if it ever sees the light of day, will once again be a force in its own right and if that happens it will not be negelected, but updated frequently, to deliver in a fast moving environment. I think it will be subscription based because its the only way companies these days can generate enough revenue to warrant frequent updates.

Maybe they can write a version which will work natively on PC as well as Mac, that would give it a significant boost and a better chance of survival. There seems little point to me these days to put so much effort into a 'limited' market. That means breaking with their traditions of being a company that produces apps for the Mac only.

[john_stephanites]

Yea true about the updates!  Coda 2 Release Notes - Panic Library all though it doesn't seem abandoned it could be much better. Like DW was for a long time. The subscription thing is getting out of hand and seems the new norm. It will get to the point it will be very expensive to do anything. How will one keep up unless you write your own shit.

[pziecina]

The problem for most web coding tools now, is that unless one requires specific features like debuggers and databases, most free open source programs offer the same features and sometimes more for nothing, (some even offer database and debuggers).

Dw and many other paid for tools, are trying to compete in a market in which they think users will pays lots for extensions, (Dw) to get that additional functionality, or one that requires specialised features and support, such as C# .net. The 'click to create' visual market is slowly being taken over by programs like Muse, and is now a market that Dw has lost, those 'click to create' people want as little as possible to do with code, or anything that requires any knowledge beyond what one can do in inDesign, knowing what they are doing or how things work, is no longer considered a requirement, even by many Dw users.

Everyone thinks they can now be a web designer and/or graphic designer, just by buying the program.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Dw and many other paid for tools, are trying to compete in a market in which they think users will pays lots for extensions, (Dw) to get that additional functionality, or one that requires specialised features and support, such as C# .net. The 'click to create' visual market is slowly being taken over by programs like Muse, and is now a market that Dw has lost, those 'click to create' people want as little as possible to do with code, or anything that requires any knowledge beyond what one can do in inDesign, knowing what they are doing or how things work, is no longer considered a requirement, even by many Dw users.

Yeah, I shall never ever understand it. I've been doing this for more years than I care to remember now and I'm still pretty much all the time coming up against a brick wall when I attempt to do something relative to what's happening in modern web development today, which only knowing something about coding will solve......so for the life of me I can't understand how someone can design a complete website without knowing anything about coding.

I mean extensions can surely only get you so far because what they can do is limited. So I guess its a case of those using extensions and not knowing much about how to extend the code for those extensions are compromising all the time, it can't be anything else. Either that or I'm dust. I'm probably dust.

[pziecina]

I look on the positive side Os, because of my age i will either be in a retirement home, or dust in the wind, in 10 years time, . Worrying about it is not worth my time.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

I look on the positive side Os, because of my age i will either be in a retirement home, or dust in the wind, in 10 years time, . Worrying about it is not worth my time.

I only expect to be doing this for another 2 or 3 years so what I know now will adequately get me through. I'll still take onboard anythng that I think will enhance my current skills but I wont be wandering too far from what I know now as I think I have a good package that can tackle most requirements that I'm likely to get asked to produce.

[john_stephanites]

You guys will be back! You can't give it up that easy.

[pziecina]

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?

[BenPleysier]

Then we have this head long rush by Dw to use open source solutions for everything.

I agree, they use HTML, CSS, JavaScript, jQuery, Bootstrap, PHP, MySQL, Git (coming next), all open source. When will they start producing their own as they have done in the past, like ADDT, SB, Spry and FGL

why is it building them into Dw's core, and not as extensions

Why not?

Users cannot edit the sass/less files required by bootstrap

Do we live in the same world?

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.

Are commercial extensions available for Brackets? Does Brackets discover Dynamically-Related files? Does Brackets include Design/Live view and synchronisation?

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.

I have been using flexbox within Dreamweaver and I have not come across any gremlins. This makes me wonder which parts of the statement I should be taking seriously.

Now Dw 2017 has less that 30% of the w3c specs supported

Although the percentage is exaggerated, this has not stopped me from using all of the W3C specs that the browsers have allowed me to use.

Anyone wish me to continue,

Yes please. I'd love to hear about multiplexing, header compression, push responses, binary instead of textual as in HTTP/2. Why are there no W3C specs for HTTP/2 (like HTTP/1.1) when the majority of browsers support the protocol?

[BenPleysier]

Cannot edit my post, I have named Bootstrap where I should have written Brackets.

[Jon Fritz]

Got it for you.

[BenPleysier]