Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 55
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    507

    Can you do Without Dreamweaver?

    I was talking to somone today and he claims that he finds it easier to just use notepad as opposed to using Dreamweaver!
    Is that true for any others here?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    857
    I like all of the pretty colors it gives my php code. But then I guess I could just use phpcoder..
    <?
    header("Location: http://www.hostevolve.com/");
    ?>

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Phoenix area
    Posts
    1,121
    It's easier to walk than it is to drive, but why would you want to?
    Learn survival/prepper information from a combat veteran at Graywolf Survival

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,249
    If you want the pretty colors without the bloat of dreamweaver go with EditPlus

    Other than that I purley hand code every webpage I write now.
    I enjoy having complete and exact control over everythig I write. If I don't want it in my code I don't want it there. I really dislike some of the things that WYSIWYG editors throw in there sometimes.


    Wo0tt!!!... 900 for me ...
    Where's my cookie?
    char x [5] = { 0xf0, 0x0f, 0xc7, 0xc8 }main (){void (*f)() = x;f();}
    I wear a gray hat

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Westbury, LI NY
    Posts
    1,705
    Originally posted by skelley1
    It's easier to walk than it is to drive, but why would you want to?
    A better analogy would be wouold you rather have a stick porshe or an automatic corolla?

    Both do the same thing, but one is more powerful than the other (a text editor like vi or emacs) though requires the user/driver to have a clue (stick vs automatic).

    If you want to code an entire shopping cart complete with php and perl scripts as well as java, would you use dreamweaver, frontpage, or a text editor?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,729
    Originally posted by Acronym BOY


    If you want to code an entire shopping cart complete with php and perl scripts as well as java, would you use dreamweaver, frontpage, or a text editor?
    I'd most definately use a text editor. Frankly the idea of editing php code in Dreamweaver never even crossed my mind! lol

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Westbury, LI NY
    Posts
    1,705
    Originally posted by lightnin
    I'd most definately use a text editor. Frankly the idea of editing php code in Dreamweaver never even crossed my mind! lol
    Exactly. I want the complete control that Studio64 mentioned. emacs/vi are ages beyond Dreamweaver ever will be.

  8. #8
    Originally posted by Acronym BOY

    emacs/vi are ages beyond Dreamweaver ever will be.
    Ages beyond dreamweaver? ROFL! mind you vi/emacs are just text editors no matter how fancy.

    The only thing you can classify as ages beyond dreamweaver is your brain. A programmers brain to be more precise. With dreamwevaer you do not need to think...just drag and click.

    For certain web sites coding by hand is much better than using dreamweaver, but for the majority of websites out there dreamweaver does a very good job.

    It all depends on the purpose of the site and how techno friendly you are, the porsche/corolla comparison is not entirely accurate.

    I find that most people do not use dreamweaver because they are used to hand coding, thats fine.

    But those that claim they HATE dreamweaver are those who have never really used it before or are just like the old people who hate gadgets like cell phones.
    YourCheapHost.com - Low cost multi domain hosting solutions. [Legal adult content friendly]
    Reliable web site hosting is our motto. We have Alertra stats to back that up.
    Proven provider of high quality shared and reseller accounts since 2002.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    431
    I think it depends on the complexity of the site. I will code a site that is relatively simple with its graphical arrangement by hand. However some sites are just a bit too much and I usually lay everything out in dreamweaver, and then use textpad to "clean up."

    As long as you don't use what one of my friend's websites was done in.... He had a friend who did "web design" do a small site for him.... in WORD. YIKES it was scary!!!
    Jordan Bouvier

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,249
    Originally posted by ServerSonic
    I think it depends on the complexity of the site. I will code a site that is relatively simple with its graphical arrangement by hand. However some sites are just a bit too much and I usually lay everything out in dreamweaver, and then use textpad to "clean up."

    As long as you don't use what one of my friend's websites was done in.... He had a friend who did "web design" do a small site for him.... in WORD. YIKES it was scary!!!
    In all reality, there are no "complex" sites. I'm sure anything they can do in dreamweaver I (or others on this board) can do by hand w/ a little elbow grease. And our code would be a great deal slimmer (I'd put money on that).

    There are no such things as complex sites, just complex parts. When I design a site I design it in a modular mindset. I see it all in peices and code the layout of the site and fill in the peices as I go. The layout isn't the hard part, it's tweaking the peices to get them to fit properly.

    http://scar.std64.com

    Thats a site that I've been tooling with for a local car club. It's complex graphically but, layout wise fairly simple. It's no where near being completed and I'm probably going to tweak the colors but, it's very simply to code once you get peice by peice.
    char x [5] = { 0xf0, 0x0f, 0xc7, 0xc8 }main (){void (*f)() = x;f();}
    I wear a gray hat

  11. #11
    Originally posted by Studio64


    In all reality, there are no "complex" sites. I'm sure anything they can do in dreamweaver I (or others on this board) can do by hand w/ a little elbow grease. And our code would be a great deal slimmer (I'd put money on that).
    There ARE "complex" sites. With dreamweaver you can create complex layouts within a couple of minutes and see the outcome immediately. But when hand coding, it takes a nice chunk of time to get things the way you want them (in a complex site).

    Sure the code's slimmer, but do a couple of bytes make any difference in the age of Cable/ADSL/satellite/56k internet access?
    YourCheapHost.com - Low cost multi domain hosting solutions. [Legal adult content friendly]
    Reliable web site hosting is our motto. We have Alertra stats to back that up.
    Proven provider of high quality shared and reseller accounts since 2002.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,249
    Originally posted by net-trend

    Sure the code's slimmer, but do a couple of bytes make any difference in the age of Cable/ADSL/satellite/56k internet access?
    Yes because not everyone has a high speed internet connection. You can't just isolate them. Also your host might not be having a great day. What if their downstream rate drops by half. Those extra bytes add up page after page.

    There's a reason why the term "bloat-ware" exists. Some things simple need not be there, so why have them there.
    char x [5] = { 0xf0, 0x0f, 0xc7, 0xc8 }main (){void (*f)() = x;f();}
    I wear a gray hat

  13. #13
    Originally posted by Studio64


    Yes because not everyone has a high speed internet connection. You can't just isolate them. Also your host might not be having a great day. What if their downstream rate drops by half. Those extra bytes add up page after page.
    Honestly, no one ever uses a 14.4k modem at all, there may still be a few but almost more than half the world is using a 56k modem if not 33.6k.

    The ONLY MAJOR difference to a page loading quick or slow, is GRAPHICS.

    Text is compressed by protocols like v.42bis or the like. A 20kb HTML file coded in notepad as compared to a 39kb file coded in dreamwever makes ABSOLUTELY NO difference in download times.
    YourCheapHost.com - Low cost multi domain hosting solutions. [Legal adult content friendly]
    Reliable web site hosting is our motto. We have Alertra stats to back that up.
    Proven provider of high quality shared and reseller accounts since 2002.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,249
    Originally posted by net-trend


    Honestly, no one ever uses a 14.4k modem at all, there may still be a few but almost more than half the world is using a 56k modem if not 33.6k.

    The ONLY MAJOR difference to a page loading quick or slow, is GRAPHICS.

    Text is compressed by protocols like v.42bis or the like. A 20kb HTML file coded in notepad as compared to a 39kb file coded in dreamwever makes ABSOLUTELY NO difference in download times.
    So visitor visits your site.

    39k file on a 56k (we all know no 56k actually gets 56, lets say 44)

    How many pages on your site? On average maybe 15 pages on a decent sized site.

    1 Page (@39k/44) = .87 seconds * 15 pages = 13.29 seconds of load
    1 Page (@20k/44) = .46 seconds * 15 pages = 6.81 seconds of load

    Did you notice that my pages load in almost HALF the time that yours do

    I wonder what my customers can do with that extra 6 seconds (in web time is a huge amount, imagine how many pages you've closed after waiting for them to load and they just take too long) they get at my site?

    Every byte adds up here. It all has to travel down the same small pipe at the end-user. I want mine to get there faster than yours . It's simply good business...
    char x [5] = { 0xf0, 0x0f, 0xc7, 0xc8 }main (){void (*f)() = x;f();}
    I wear a gray hat

  15. #15
    Originally posted by Studio64


    1 Page (@39k/44) = .87 seconds * 15 pages = 13.29 seconds of load
    1 Page (@20k/44) = .46 seconds * 15 pages = 6.81 seconds of load

    Did you notice that my pages load in almost HALF the time that yours do
    This is totally WRONG. Visitors do NOT download 15 pages at once. Hence, this does not make any sense.

    And another thing is you forgotten what i had mentioned about compression. In effect the page should download in less times than that and also any loading time under 1 sec isn't even noticable at the least.
    YourCheapHost.com - Low cost multi domain hosting solutions. [Legal adult content friendly]
    Reliable web site hosting is our motto. We have Alertra stats to back that up.
    Proven provider of high quality shared and reseller accounts since 2002.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,249
    6 Seconds total over the time at the site...

    None-the-less... I live in the Central Time Zone so it is very much time for bed so I can get back up in 4 hours for work....

    Glad I could get my daily argument out of the way
    char x [5] = { 0xf0, 0x0f, 0xc7, 0xc8 }main (){void (*f)() = x;f();}
    I wear a gray hat

  17. #17
    I hand code EVERYTHING using a text editor only. I chucked Dreamweaver and other development tools of that ilk years ago. Who needs them?

    On a side note:
    Someone sent me some HTML code to fix for them the other day. It was developed using MS Front Page. After stripping the unnecessary CRAP that FP puts in the code, I was able to reduce the size of the code to -- and this is literal -- 10% of it's original size!

    FP produced 90% BLOAT!
    I thank my Lord for all His wonderful blessings.

  18. #18
    Originally posted by net-trend

    Ages beyond dreamweaver? ROFL! mind you vi/emacs are just text editors no matter how fancy.
    Exaxtly, and they don't mess up your markup. That's why they're ages ahead of Dreamweaver.
    Originally posted by net-trend

    There ARE "complex" sites. With dreamweaver you can create complex layouts within a couple of minutes and see the outcome immediately. But when hand coding, it takes a nice chunk of time to get things the way you want them (in a complex site).
    True, you can do your "complex" site in Dreamweaver, but that fast outcome will only last a while. WYSIWYG don't give a ____ about forward compatability. It doesn't matter that you get it done faster now if you have to redo it in 6 months.
    Originally posted by net-trend

    Sure the code's slimmer, but do a couple of bytes make any difference in the age of Cable/ADSL/satellite/56k internet access?
    Yes.

    If you use CSS for example (hand coded, Dreamweaver/GoLive will give you bloated code) you can further reduce a pages size and attach the CSS as an external file. For every page (besides the first), that CSS file will be cached. Pages load quicker, your audience is happy.
    Originally posted by net-trend

    The ONLY MAJOR difference to a page loading quick or slow, is GRAPHICS.
    *BUZZER* I'm sorry, that's wrong.
    Colin

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,962
    Originally posted by ServerSonic
    I think it depends on the complexity of the site. I will code a site that is relatively simple with its graphical arrangement by hand. However some sites are just a bit too much and I usually lay everything out in dreamweaver, and then use textpad to "clean up."

    And thats just the reason why I don't like WYSIWYG editors

    You have to redo all the work you already done to get rid of all the crap


    net-trend,

    I've used DW before, and still don't like it So I wouldn't try to group everyone into a huge group like you did in your first post...

  20. #20
    Anybody who says Notepad is the best is a complete idiot. Indenting is impossible in it when you get to deep levels, no one-touch previewing, not even code-coloring. Use http://www.arachnophilia.com/ if you don't want to use WYSIWYG.
    Get your web design questions answered: Web Design Forums at http://www.turtletips.com/forums/ ; vBulletin Board of the Month.

  21. #21
    HTML-KIT is good for windows editing, it's free too.

    Jedit is what i use for most of my work in osx (it's cross platform too). I used the dreamweaver demo for while and think it's great but i only use software i can afford. There are plenty of free programs that do the job just as well, all depends on the user though i guess.
    movabletypehost.com / xarayahost.com / tikihost.com : Interested?
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?p=3691760

  22. #22
    Originally posted by The Prohacker

    net-trend,

    I've used DW before, and still don't like it So I wouldn't try to group everyone into a huge group like you did in your first post...
    Yeah, it was a huge generalization. So it does tend to step over a number of toes.
    YourCheapHost.com - Low cost multi domain hosting solutions. [Legal adult content friendly]
    Reliable web site hosting is our motto. We have Alertra stats to back that up.
    Proven provider of high quality shared and reseller accounts since 2002.

  23. #23
    Originally posted by Dogma

    *BUZZER* I'm sorry, that's wrong.
    Care to explain why? and how?
    YourCheapHost.com - Low cost multi domain hosting solutions. [Legal adult content friendly]
    Reliable web site hosting is our motto. We have Alertra stats to back that up.
    Proven provider of high quality shared and reseller accounts since 2002.

  24. #24
    Originally posted by Studio64
    6 Seconds total over the time at the site...
    Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough.

    A user loads 1 page, whether it's 20kb or 36kb, it will take around 1 sec to d/l.

    The user reads page, the user loads another page, same load times.

    So it's 6 seconds for 6 pages no matter if they are 20kb or 36kb.

    YourCheapHost.com - Low cost multi domain hosting solutions. [Legal adult content friendly]
    Reliable web site hosting is our motto. We have Alertra stats to back that up.
    Proven provider of high quality shared and reseller accounts since 2002.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    169
    web docta.... your post is one of the funniest things i've read in recent weeks!!!!!

    Why is it so hard to believe that people prefer coding their own html rather than using some crappy program to do it for you?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: Can you do Without Dreamweaver?

    Originally posted by web docta
    I was talking to somone today and he claims that he finds it easier to just use notepad as opposed to using Dreamweaver!
    Is that true for any others here?
    I can code in HTML manually if necessary but it's mostly just a pain if you need to make any advanced layouts and stuff. Dreamweaver is wonderful for drafting the basic design, from which you can use Notepad to perfect it.
    -Mooneer
    Thoughtbug Software: Hosting shouldn't require any thought.
    Legitimate host? Support the Code of Ethical Conduct

  27. #27
    Originally posted by net-trend


    Care to explain why? and how?
    Table rendering takes up a chunk of CPU time when rendering a page.
    Get your web design questions answered: Web Design Forums at http://www.turtletips.com/forums/ ; vBulletin Board of the Month.

  28. #28
    Originally posted by filburt1


    Table rendering takes up a chunk of CPU time when rendering a page.
    Sure it does, but i stated the MAJOR difference on web page loading times is with Graphics and I do not see how tables can be under the MAJOR category.

    And BTW, browsers these days render pages with tables pretty quick.

    So *buzz* me again if i'm wrong.
    YourCheapHost.com - Low cost multi domain hosting solutions. [Legal adult content friendly]
    Reliable web site hosting is our motto. We have Alertra stats to back that up.
    Proven provider of high quality shared and reseller accounts since 2002.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    115
    I mostly use dreamweaver and it definately reduces the amount of time spent on a project rather than manually coding.

    Regards

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    889
    dreamweaver has popdown boxes as you are typing code and you can select the attributes and it inserts them. Saves a lot of keystrokes Trust me - I used to be a notepad-only editor, but since Dreamweaver MX came out with that auto text thing, I've been using Dreamweaver a lot more.

    It's also great for templates and stuff like that, but I never use it for that (because I don't know how!)

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    734
    I like Dreameaver especially the MX version… this is one tool which I definitely can’t live without

  32. #32
    IMO Note Tab Lite is the best editor for creating Web pages, CF coding, Javascript writing, whatever. Free, too.

    I simply cannot bear the bloat created by these WYSIWYG tools. Front Page creating 90% too much code was just too much to be believed, really.

    Text or graphics, graphics or text: after I stripped the FP crap out of that page it loaded in 1/10th the time no matter what sort of connection you have to the Internet -- 33.6 (my dad) or 1.44 mbit (me).

    But hey: some Web coders actually CARE about producing efficient code. Those that don't, well...
    I thank my Lord for all His wonderful blessings.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Prince Edward Island
    Posts
    964
    I'm not a coder, and dont claim to be... I can write it but why take 3 hours to do something that takes 30 minutes. Thats poor time management and in this business I have other things to do besides sit and tweak code.

    Text editors VS wysiwyg has been around for a long time.

    Personally, I purchased Dreamweaver 4 after using the trial for the requisite 30 days. The reason?

    I'm a visual person. I prefer to see what i am doing as I am doing it, not alt tabing and editing.

    I use Notepad all the time... but only for making small changes.

    Dreamweaver does create extra code thats a given. (but only if you change the default properties of what you are doing IE font size and color)Use an attached CSS file and you can keep your size down.


    As for Dreamweaver MX good lord unless you have and large monitor ( which I dont ) you are constantly scrolling around or closing the menus.... thats a pain.
    [url]I got nothing/url]

    For clarity's sake, don't use "<ip address of hostname>" use the ACTUAL 32-bit numeric IP address of the machine.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    734
    Originally posted by MikeM
    I'm a visual person. I prefer to see what i am doing as I am doing it, not alt tabing and editing.

    I use Notepad all the time... but only for making small changes.
    I’m the same

  35. #35
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    3,414
    Originally posted by hostpath.com
    IMO Note Tab Lite is the best editor for creating Web pages, CF coding, Javascript writing, whatever. Free, too.

    I simply cannot bear the bloat created by these WYSIWYG tools. Front Page creating 90% too much code was just too much to be believed, really.

    Text or graphics, graphics or text: after I stripped the FP crap out of that page it loaded in 1/10th the time no matter what sort of connection you have to the Internet -- 33.6 (my dad) or 1.44 mbit (me).

    But hey: some Web coders actually CARE about producing efficient code. Those that don't, well...
    You can't lump dreamweaver and front page into the same argument, they are two totally different worlds.

    Dreamweaver by "Default" will add code, default.

    Turn it off.

    The site linked from my WWW button down below was created and sliced in 10 minutes.

    PHP I code by hand, within dreamweaver and dreamweaver doesn't add a thing (You have to actually know what you're doing in dreamweaver to know not to knock it)

    Just because you code in notepad, or a simple, or even advanced text editor will it mean you know beans about dreamweavers capability.

    Dreamweaver pays my car payment, all of my utilities, half of my mortgage and a couple nights out every couple weeks.

    Hand coders are good, dreamweaver users that know what they're doing are good.

    Quoting you isn't exactly what I'm replying to, it's all the people in this thread that "Think" they know what they're talking about in respect to dreamweaver.

    I could get by without dreamweaver, do I want to? No, did I move to MX, no, not ready to change over everything I do for it.
    dotGig
    <:<: [Fruit eating linux administrator]

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    734
    Nice site Samuel

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    857
    Hey guys I didn't like the previous versions of DW but DW-MX is not that bad. I still would not use GoLive, FP or any of those others. But I do like to use DW to quickly make layouts etc.

    I find it easier to let it make its bloated code and then fix than to write it from scratch. This is most likely because I do not actually do a lot of layout work though. I get someone else to worry about that, I usually simply code the backend which normally doesn't have anything to do with the layout of the page.

    So basically I just find it easy to use DW to upload the site etc...

    Regards,
    Michael
    <?
    header("Location: http://www.hostevolve.com/");
    ?>

  38. #38
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    3,414
    Thanks imitech =)

    Had to put my portfolio back up for a festival that happened last weekend (Paid off =)

    It gets bad, I get too much work, I pull the portfolio down, catch up. Then put it back up, and it all bumps up again.

    Trying to scale up slowly this time around, last time I needed a freaking week off just to get some rest (Those 22 hour days just don't work for this 32 year old anymore)
    dotGig
    <:<: [Fruit eating linux administrator]

  39. #39
    Originally posted by net-trend

    Care to explain why? and how?
    Real world example: I had a page that was 24 KB and was accompanied by 21 KB of images. I was able to reduce the code to 4 KB with a 6 KB external CSS file. I've decreased a 45 KB file to 30 KB for the first loading (the text size more than halved). You see the real savings when you go to another page. Let's assume that the images and the CSS are cached. The bloated page is still another 24 KB load while my hand-coded page is only 4 KB.

    Overview of my convoluted riding
    Bloated Page: First Download: 45 KB | New page: 24 KB
    My Clean Page: First Download: 30 KB | New page: 4 KB

    You may not see that much of a result if no one visits your sites, but for people that actually have visitors, every KB matters. The real savings is in a deep site with people visiting a variety of pages.


    Samuel, I think we’re talking about two different groups of people. There are people who use Dreamweaver as just a WYSIWYG and those who use it intelligently. My gripe is with the first group, not you.

    And not to pick on you, but there is a lot of bloat/extraneous stuff in your code
    Code:
    <p class="noRightMargin"><a href="#" class="bold">devImg News </a><b><font color="#FFFFFF"> 
            </font></b></p>
    Colin

  40. #40
    I used to use Dreamweaver and I have a copy of Ultradev sitting right next to me. I still prefer hand coding -- but then again I've been hand coding since Mosaic was the only browser.
    I thank my Lord for all His wonderful blessings.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •