Interesting times ahead

[osgood_]

This should be an eye opening period in the coming few weeks - 'W' It's going to be interesting to see if the few die hard supporters of certain extensions around here and those that shout out for server-side tools to be re-introduced are going to abandon DW. It sounds a bit Muse like-ish on steriods, in any case the rhetric, as far as I can determine at the minute, it's not for coders, so it's probably going to suit the demographic of this forum quite well.

Happy days - the more the merrier.

[pziecina]

O/K Os, you have lost me, what are you talking about?

[BenPleysier]

I think this is what is referred to: https://www.dmxzone.com/go/33047/closed-beta-version-of-wappler-is-released

[pziecina]

Personally speaking Ben, I don't think it will change anything to any degree, unless Dw is going to drop things like css designer, and live edit, (as both have not been updated in years, they may as well). Then again i don't know what the plans are for Dw in the future, and for all i know Adobe may discontinue it, or change it completely.

The majority of paying Dw users are probably subscribing to CC for other apps, and not specifically for Dw. In which case Wappler will probably not interest them, as it would mean extra costs.

[BenPleysier]

I am not one of the unlucky ones that has been invited to trial the closed beta version, so I don't know either. Will wait and see. For the moment, DW extensions will be supported alongside the new product.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Personally speaking Ben, I don't think it will change anything to any degree, unless Dw is going to drop things like css designer, and live edit, (as both have not been updated in years, they may as well). Then again i don't know what the plans are for Dw in the future, and for all i know Adobe may discontinue it, or change it completely.

The majority of paying Dw users are probably subscribing to CC for other apps, and not specifically for Dw. In which case Wappler will probably not interest them, as it would mean extra costs.

We live in hope that someone somewhere will bring out something that actually works!

At the moment personally I think we have products out there which are either overkill or under performing. There is nothing really for the middle market......

[pziecina]

For me what Dw 2018 includes will decide on its future, and things like css grid layout support, except in code hinting are not top of my must have list.

Things like a stand alone prefixer for css, base64 encoding, and if it supports srcset/picture beyond simple code hinting are much more important. Without them in the next version, Dw will show it is not serious about modern web development.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

For me what Dw 2018 includes will decide on its future, and things like css grid layout support, except in code hinting are not top of my must have list.

Things like a stand alone prefixer for css, base64 encoding, and if it supports srcset/picture beyond simple code hinting are much more important. Without them in the next version, Dw will show it is not serious about modern web development.

Yeah, I'm miffed really. I dusted off an old copy of Coda 2 a couple of days ago because when I used to use it extensively I really liked its simplicity. It's looking tired and a bit mickie-mouse now but do you know I was surprised to uncover that typing display: flex; in a css file, not even having to save the file, expanded to include all the Flexbox prefixes!! We'll hell there were a few too many prefixes as they have been trimmed down since Codas release and it only expanded for display: flex; not justify-content etc BUT if it's that simple to deploy why do all the other editors make us use silly pre-processors or plugins to do something which must be simple. Maybe it's to do with keeping the prefixes up-to-date?

But heck I liked that simplicity as I don't have to jump through hoops where other files need to watch other files or relying on seperate programs to do the job or using the terminal to bring in all the support files needed to do it. Another one which bugs me is validation. Why does every editor try and interpret the WC3 validator and pass its own results back to the UI rather than just uploading the open file to the actual WC3 validator. Textmate editor (now defunct) was doing thats via a command years ago and its the only validator that really counts

WTF is happening in web development today? Recently I took to looking into React js to discover developers are constructing whole websites in javascript now, what? They are even using React to flip open a <div> which native javascript or even JQuery can do in half the code and half the time, what on earth is going on? I mean for complex applications maybe be but for bringing in a header and footer as components - we were doing that with php includes years ago. At the moment nothing is making much sense.

[pziecina]

The idea with modern auto-prefixers is that you can select which, (how far back) your css code support should go, as for coda offering prefixed support only for flex, my lips are sealed on what could have been.

JavaScript frameworks, where developed i think as an alternative for coders who did not wish to learn a server-side language, but did know js. Plus it makes those using them, (just like the php cms's) look as though they know more than they really do.

You could always join the pre-release and have an 'official' moan about the state of web development, and the lack of the right tools to do the job.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

You could always join the pre-release and have an 'official' moan about the state of web development, and the lack of the right tools to do the job.

Pretty pointless really. I'm not sure anything is going to change any time soon.  What I find disappoining is there were a few editors which were ahead of their time when released by smaller companies/individuals and then those companies or individuals became bored/disillusioned and either open sourced the product or just let it gather dust. Of cousre it doesnt help that players like Atom, VS Code, Brackets etc flood the market with FREE editors which stiffles innovation from small companies with good ideas as they cannot make any money out of competing with something for nothing, unless they offer something hugley specialist...

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

Of cousre it doesnt help that players like Atom, VS Code, Brackets etc flood the market with FREE editors which stiffles innovation from small companies with good ideas as they cannot make any money out of competing with something for nothing, unless they offer something hugley specialist...

I think that is what dmx are doing, in that they are going to aim their product at a very specific market. The question i ask myself though, is will PVII extensions work with the new product, and will all dmx's current Dw extensions transfer to their new product, as that could make Dw obsolete for many current users if they do.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

osgood_   wrote

I think that is what dmx are doing, in that they are going to aim their product at a very specific market. The question i ask myself though, is will PVII extensions work with the new product, and will all dmx's current Dw extensions transfer to their new product, as that could make Dw obsolete for many current users if they do.

I think I read that the DMXZONE DW extensions WILL work in their new product.

I'm not sure they are bothered about anyone elses extensions. It seems to me what they are trying to build is a modern stand-alone product which works with the vast array of components they have available which in itself is something which no other product will be able to offer so, its not just another editor which would die on its bum, it's something backed up by something which is unique, something which DW started out doing and then dropped the ball in favour of becoming a shell in which to shoe-horn everyone elses great ideas because most of their own ended very badly.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

For me what Dw 2018 includes will decide on its future, and things like css grid layout support, except in code hinting are not top of my must have list.

Things like a stand alone prefixer for css, base64 encoding, and if it supports srcset/picture beyond simple code hinting are much more important. Without them in the next version, Dw will show it is not serious about modern web development.

Paula,

You're a very smart and talented woman, but you don't come close to being a typical Dreamweaver user. What I think you are typical of is the average frequent poster in this forum. That said, my congratulations go to DMX Zone for having the initiative to at least try something new for non-coders: the typical Dreamweaver user.

Extensions are not going anywhere because done well they are exactly what the typical Dreamweaver user wants, and an extreme time-saver for the atypical Dreamweaver users who like to code.

Actually, if not for people like us, DMX Zone, Massimo Foti, Andrew Woolridge, and others who invented the extensions market, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, because Dreamweaver would have died a very long time ago.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

Actually, if not for people like us, DMX Zone, Massimo Foti, Andrew Woolridge, and others who invented the extensions market, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, because Dreamweaver would have died a very long time ago.

I agree with you Al, what first got me really interested in Dw was how easy it was to create my own extension, and that by doing so I could add features from the latest specs, long before they where included in any other editor.

Unfortunatly since CS6, that has become more and more difficult with every version, and almost impossible in Dw 2017, as the Brackets code editor has some very serious shortcomings in my opinion, (o/k for a free product but not for a paid for product).

I'm not a professional extension developer by any means, but i often wonder how many ex-users used Dw because of the same reasons I had.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

and an extreme time-saver for the atypical Dreamweaver users who like to code.

That of course is assuming the options an extension provides is something which is desired.

I would say extensions are invaluable for those who can't code or happy to settle for what an extension can provide them rather than Dreamweaver users who like to code. Coders generally like to try and write their own stuff because more often than not they require something an extension doesn't cater for........so saving time, if it does, is not always the crital factor.

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

ALsp   wrote

and an extreme time-saver for the atypical Dreamweaver users who like to code.

That of course is assuming the options an extension provides is something which is desired.

Thinking about Dw, extensions and the typical Dw user, whom lots of people assume for one reason or another is code challenged, which may be true now but was not i think always so. I don't think it was true untill Adobe adopted the subscription model, before that Dw started trying to cater for everyone as CS6 finally became the first serious release since Adobe took over Macromedia, but once it became subscription only and tried to fit the creation of sites into the Adobe user base, many coders ended up dropping the product as it became more of a beginners environment, with extension providers trying to provide features that the none coder could not do themselves.

If you look at most extensions, they are well written, and many do save time initially, but if they offer anything exclusive, or features that the user could not learn to code better themselves, I don't think so. If Dw itself offered better support for features that it regards as too advanced (and early enough) I think more users would code. Provided Dw did not try to lock users into some pre-conceived workflow, as they are now doing, (Adobe this is for you - if i wanted to use sublime i would buy sublime, and that goes for any other code editor, stop trying to force beginner ways and workflows on everyone).

Someone elses code is always interesting to a professional, providing it is well written, but it should be no more than a starting point on which to expand ones own ideas upon.

The problem with the way extensions are being 'marketed' in this, (and other Adobe forums) is that they provide a finished product, which should never be an absolute fact for professionals, but as Dw is being aimed at beginners judging by its direction of development since becoming a subscription only product, it is probably not surprising that many believe it is so, and tell others it is so.

[ALsp]

Paula,

I think neither Adobe, nor the frequent contributors on this forum have even a remote idea of who actually uses Dreamweaver, and why. You can argue the point all you want, but as far as I know, neither you nor anyone else posting on this thread has a large customer base of Dreamweaver users from which to cull evidence-based assumptions.

Talented coders, as a rule, have never embraced Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver's majority of users have always been small designers, hobbyists, contributors to a much larger development team, and individuals who craft their own web site. It has never changed. A talented coder capable of writing complex CSS and of writing efficient and powerful script would rarely, if ever, use Dreamweaver. I still have a copy of Homesite installed, and it is still better for coding than Dreamweaver. I don't use it, but it's incredible to look at all the hard work that went into making Macromedia such a great company and how it's been systematically destroyed by Adobe.

I am not a forum poster by trade. I don't measure what a Dreamweaver user is by looking at what goes on in this forum. That would be like trying to analyze climate change by reading a single newspaper. Obviously, this forum is a closed system... or something else I have no idea how to even define, but I do know this, if Adobe ever decided to embrace extension developers and listen to them, Dreamweaver would be a better product for it. The sad thing is, we cannot write extensions that fix stupidity.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

The sad thing is, we cannot write extensions that fix stupidity.

Some things will never change, will they

As for who or how many Dw users there are, Adobe has 10 million CC subscribers, and i would be surprised if more than 1% used Dw.

Compare that to 2 million .net developers using VS -

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/zxue/2016/10/24/how-many-developers-use-c-vs-c-vs-other-programming...

(guess which program i use for my work )

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Compare that to 2 million .net developers using VS -

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/zxue/2016/10/24/how-many-developers-use-c-vs-c-vs-other-p rogrammin...

(guess which program i use for my work )

Page Spinner - Best Modern editor out there:

http://www.optima-system.com/pagespinner/

But the very best is Taco editor:

Taco Software

[B i r n o u]

hello Al,

I can't say that I know the DW usertype, and worth, I just see the profile here, only in France... so it is not very representative, but...

after all these years spent accompanying companies in their migration, taking charge of their websites and their reflections on the development of their 'applications', or initiating most academics (level baccalaureat, level 3 and license) ... those who use the most DW are as you have noticed the non-coders (but not only... see below) ... much people are moving to other tools available out there...

when we talk about buying extensions to brings solutions... often, the reaction is almost immediately to think about platforms like WP ... and thus DW does not serve any more,

what sometimes happens, is that the extensions do not systematically meet the needs sought ... (ie non-reducing, searching in a database and sending cross-references, personify the user account, having specific master/details combination... and so on) ... so again this does not fundamentally meet the initial needs.

all this to say that developing a basic site with basic needs by using DW can get very expensive in extensions to add to the initial price of DW, or to ask for skills in the languages ​​and technologies used, and there I join the points raised by Paula on the integration and taking into account at the base of a robust HTML, the fringe of CSS and APIs (not forgetting the possibility of boosting the rendering engine itself and not having to wait for the bets official update).

perhaps my frenglish drives confusions in my words, so please don't hesitate to arise it, I will try to precise my thoughts

[pziecina]

Thank you for joining this discussion Birnou.

No one knows just who uses Dw, or what type of user they are,(coder vs designer) not even the extension developers, as by definition extension developers will only have information or feedback from those buying and using their extensions, pushing the statistics they have completely in the direction of their user type.

That is not to say I think DMXZone is wrong in their latest endeavour to produce a web tool aimed at those wishing a more visual development environment. Just the opossite, I congratulate them and wish them every success with the project.

My concerns are that with dmxzone making such a move, 'where does that leave Dw'?

It is obvious to me that they think Dw no longer meets the needs of the more visual designer Dw users anymore, and that there are enough Dw users willing to 'drop' Dw in favour of their product, but as a coder I also know Dw is also failing to meet my requirerments in many, many areas.

Where this will leave Dw in the future, I cannot even guess, but if it does not match the requirements of either type of professional user, it only leaves the beginner, or casual user.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

My concerns are that with dmxzone making such a move, 'where does that leave Dw'?

It constitutes just one more nail in the coffin as has been happening slowly over the past few years and which is visibly noticable by the down turn of activity in the forum these days. Virtually no questions are asked these days about actual coding.

I don't believe that CC Cloud subscibers are using DW just becasue they are subscibed to CC. There isn't a great deal of cross-over unless you also use Indesign, Photoshop etc for say DTP. Any good web-developer is unfortunately going to be using a FREE editor, of which there are many to choose from. Those that are not that good and have no need for the arsenal of weapons that CC Cloud provides may well be jumping ship to other less expensive solutions, of which there are quite a few.

It goes without saying unless you are on your game as a product developer you will become a casualty - Textmate, Page Spinner, Taco, Aptana Studio, BBEdit(although still being developed last time I looked its internal 'live view' didn't suport Flexbox, although v12 is shortly to be released), Coda 2 (not been updated since 2012 in a major capacity although v3 has been threatened to happen since about 2 years ago) etc. I could name more but you get the picture.....

[BenPleysier]

I think that the biggest problem with new DMX products is having to sit through their videos.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

I think that the biggest problem with new DMX products is having to sit through their videos.

Strange that. I think it's a marketing mistake as it's not very user friendly. Don't really think it does their products any justice which are usually well thought about and planned.

[pziecina]

Just an observation that i often make concerning this type of discussion, (also just one of the many reasons i think pre-release is a waste of time and space).

It is interesting that no one ever from Adobe, ever makes any comments, or replys to anything written by anybody.

That probably also explains why dmxzone made the decission to produce their own product.