Frequent I’ve heard precisely how inferior FP should be to DW, how " real" web-developers do not use FP.
Nonetheless… both are WYSIWYG uses. Both allow one to hand code, in the event you wish. And because of the looks of that FP 2003 beta, it appears Microsoft is building a considerable attempt that will eat into a number Macromedia’s market promote. Complaints about FP’s excessive and proprietary code have also been addressed, it appears. I’ve seen excellent commercial sites produced with FP. So, as a FP customer, why do MY PARTNER AND I still have the inferiority complex
Never get me erroneous, I think DW fantastic product. BUT, have I been told almost all these years to avoid FP even if DW is considered the " hipper" instrument OR, can DW make it happen much more when compared with FP
Are you at that high of a disadvantage professionally books use FP as an alternative to DW
WDFers good off…
You’re missing a significant point… 90% of developers usually do not use Dreamweaver’s WYSIWYG conclusion.. they use the actual code-only view. POST only use dreamweaver simply because:
a) I failed to have ot pay for it
b) FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL built-in is nice
c) It is just a good text editor with some pleasant auto-complete options
I know don’t like the actual iterations of FP so it adds irrelevant code into a site that might (and does) lead to problems. DW won’t AFAIK. Besides, it really is M$. If FP 2K3 provides multiple advances over DW, then I might look at it.
" You’re missing a significant point… 90% of developers usually do not use Dreamweaver’s WYSIWYG conclusion.. they use the actual code-only view. "
Perhaps… but isn’t in which like saying MY SPOUSE AND I buy Playboy mainly for any articles
Dreamweaver is actually extensible. Potentially any person who uses DW, and is known for a good experience using Javascript, can build extensions. Can you say the identical for FP
Absolutely no, I’m saying with my experience FP has been a complete WYSIWYG editor, and not code-friendly in any respect. As wired stated.. it adds equipment in.
POST actually dont acknowledge that 90% with designers use computer code only view.. in the info ive seen they start using a mix of rule view/ design view specifically repetitive tasks.
if the thinking of executing some serious code then i’d use neither DW or FP.
If you was mandated to choose one we’d suggest DW thanks to its built-in FTP feature.
I know don’t use the design view that typically, simply because it screws up a good deal. I usually just simply upload it, then look at the uploaded type. Yes, I know that can be done a web view on your hard drive, but it’s just nasty to make use of.
I use hardly any of DW in addition to tried FP a little while back. From exactly what I saw FP ended up being always adding 50% far more code than what exactly was required. More often than not I do this stuff in notepad, upload and then look at it. May not always be the quickest means of doing things but helps to ensure that I am always learning and still have 100% control over my code. If I had to bother making a choice or recomendation it becomes DW because the particular code it writes is a great deal of better.
Whereas DreamWeaver is often a " hip, cool" mac-user oriented product (don’t even argue this aspect… the company, MACromedia, initially ONLY made software package for macs), FrontPage is designed for corporate America.
The typical DreamWeaver user shall be a savvy web-designer who presumably features a good handle at HTML, PHP, JavaScript, Adobe flash, and Fireworks. Those will be the technologies Macromedia is pushing inside their web efforts, and their applications are powerful and useful therefore to their intended audience. DW also is intended for modifying a straightforward single site at a time, assuming less when compared with 10 or 20 people is going to be working on just about any single project at any moment.
ANY FrontPage user, alternatively, is most probably someone who uses it to treat a large corporate and business website. FrontPage offers many built-in equipment for multi-user environments where editing permissions along with publishing become a new complex issue. It ties within Microsoft Active Service, allowing administrators to treat permissions of customers on all inner and external web projects. It also ties into Microsoft CMS (Content Direction Server) and ‘microsoft’ SQL Server, which then parse the HTML CODE docs and data source everything, allowing intended for management of TWELVE, 000+ page internet websites. It ALSO jewelry into Microsoft Document Management Server and also Microsoft Visual Source Safe, which are versioning databases that should store document modification histories and enable rollbacks, merges, branching, and various complex document track record tasks. It ALSO ties into Microsoft Visual Business for ASP development, Microsoft Office intended for word and stand out file embedding, Microsoft Internet Information Node for publishing, and just about every other Microsoft product geared toward the actual corporate environment. See where I am going here The fact that Microsoft formats the code the best way it sees fit doesn’t bother the people who use FP… they’ve already bought in to the MS way of doing things, and the idea works for them.
An example of a company that will use FP will be Lucent / Avaya. My ex is their web director. They use FrontPage to treat over 100 web pages worldwide, with a large number of employees having distinct authoring priveleges all managed through MS tools integrated in FP.
DW could not handle that activity.
Just a question here transio (because clearly I’ve never worked with a website with which has dozens of authors), but doesn’t Dreamweaver’s Web site capabilities and check in/out contain the same editing permissions you are talkinga bout
Transio, good YEAH, but might it FTP
In the discussion here, I am assuming not, but you’d think right now it could.
At any rate, for an intriguing read, check out today’s feeting verson of Wired Magazine for a good poke with Powerpoint.
Brak, DW won’t support the difficulty of MS FP / CMS, which integrates into dynamic directory, and features multiple levels with authorship (designers, content authors regarding different departments with usage of different pages, section managers who say yes to intradepartmental modifications, and webmasters who seem to publish approved changes towards production environment). This also doesn’t support the actual complex web constructions that FP susta