pziecina wrote https://forums.adobe.com/people/VL+Branko wrote And, I should say that I have actually learned a lot about HTML but especially CSS by studying the extensions I got from P7 because I had to in order to customize them to the max to suit my aesthetic. Now no one would think it came from P7 unless they looked under the hood. Using extensions to learn is one of the reasons I think they are usefull to users. The problem I have though, is that I think what a lot of extensions do, should be part of Dw itself. I don't think leaving such features out of Dw as a stand alone program is what users should expect, and they should not expect to have to pay an extension developer extra. I know that would put extension developers out of business, but that is another discussion. Even the developers of Dw must use tools for layout, (talking about the programmers of Dw now) and debugging, and as much of Dw is developed using html, css and js, why does the Dw management think that Dw users doing the same would not require the tools they use? (I'm returning to the subject that interested me originally in this discussion, support for coding). Just as Visual Studio Pro, has visual tools for layout, and tools to help in debugging any code, so should Dw. The use of extensions should, (I would hope) remove the requirement of debugging for those who do not wish to get as deep into code as would otherwise be required. Hmmmm. This sounds a bit like Microsoft's tactics in the 80s. Somebody had a popular 3rd party utility, and in the next iteration of PC DOS that utility would become part of the OS and the 3rd party company went kaput. They did the same to Word Perfect, offered MS Word for free and killed Word Perfect, and after it died they charged through the nose for MS Word. Did the same to Netscape. Of course it would be great if Adobe DW could do a lot of things that currently are extensions. But I suspect that the people who make extensions would just make something else that DW doesn't do but that people want. However having said that it seems that DW is incapable of doing this (hence your complaint) so extension makers do it instead. Then people get DW simply to have a platform to run the extensions. Or like I say "Salad is just an excuse to have salad dressing" If you saw the kind of salad dressing I make you would know what I mean (think lots of avocados, fresh dill, honey, mustard, yogurt, etc real thick and creamy ). I also think that extensions arise because Adobe just can't get it right on several issues. For example DW tools for making a fluid grid layout in CS6 was a non-starter, but an extension did the job perfectly. PhotoShop has a lot of extensions but I can't see Adobe building those extensions into the system it would be a colossal task that would bloat the system with things only a few people would use. I have the complete Topaz collection but only use 3 of them. And that is only one extension. Another thing is that P7 extensions work on every known iteration of DW. How would that work if they were built into DW? I don't think P7 and others are going to go out of business any time soon. Not unless Adobe makes them an offer they can't refuse. So I understand that your real complaint is that Adobe should be such a complete system that extensions would be unnecessary. I can agree with that but, it seems, that will never happen. So we are therefor thankful for P7 and other extension makers. Exactly what do you refer to when you say "Visual Studio Pro?"
... View more