Abhishek Reddy — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 08:34:10 +0000

Quote: (or build my own editor )

Now that takes "building a car to drive one" to a whole new level.

Jack Michaelson — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 08:27:21 +0000

Just like Megan I think 'partually' should have been an option here as well. I use DW for some mouseovers and preloads, the rest I code by hand. I still use HomeSite 4.5 for that (and a sniff of Notepad for some finetuning when HomeSite is not running and I'm too lazy to start it):
-color coded tags
-its free: 30 Days Evaluation Copy runs forever

But I'm thinking of starting to code with another Editor, becasue mostly I have HomeSite 4.5 and Delphi 5 running together, which gives me a lot of 'Access Violation Errors'.
Guess I'll have a look at 1stpage and EditPad (or build my own editor ).

Busy — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 08:21:33 +0000

I think a lot of it comes down to what the person is used to, I hate using editors cause I always have to tweak it some how or rather so in the long run hand coding is faster, but I use editpad (text editer) and a small standalone program called typeitin which is like a macro thingy, just type in your tags, press the button when you need it and its there. I reckon using this method could keep up or even beat a WYSIWYG.

like anything, the more you use it, the better and faster you get at it

The Webmistress — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 07:27:05 +0000

I guess a lot of it comes down to what you get used to!

Abhishek Reddy — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 07:15:27 +0000

Alright, my turn.

I only ever use EditPad for HTML, PHP, ASP, whatever.

Primarily because it allows me to "get to know" my code better.
In fact, I get to know my code so well that a moments notice, I can recite verbally the entire code for my last website. (Ok, maybe not that well, but you get the idea.)

It helps me learn valid code better, because I, and only I, am responsible for altering invalid code. (Note: I use HTML validators, but I still have to change bad code.)

Editability is easier. It's far easier to click once and change say, an image width from "150" to "160", rather than, God forbid, to attempt dragging to exact pixel values, or even clicking through a few too many menus then a dialog, then a field, then an "OK"...

Believe it or not, it is faster for me to build a table from scratch than it is to navigate through those few too many menus, dialogs and buttons. Then fine-tuning is a repeat-process.

And hardware. I run a modest machine. One that is quite grateful for running a text editor, that uses only a small fraction of the resources, when active, that Dreamweaver or Frontpage use when idle.

To use Suzanne's analogy ("under the hood")- I can see how WYSIWYG fans can't understand why someone would rather build a car — engine, body, and all — instead of just using a key to start one. But make no mistake, text editors aren't as inefficient as they may appear.

It might be worthwhile noting that I also have a small library of commonly used HTML code snippets at my side. All it takes is a Ctrl+C, and Ctrl+V, and voila, I have the basic skeleton for a . Also, every new HTML document begins with a code-template of the vital tags , , , . These handy li'l techniques save me around $500 in software that I could've used for the same purpose.

In the context of "projects", I must also mention that EditPad Pro has a Project option that allows the user to save the list of files used in any project.

zollet — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 02:41:08 +0000

I guess it all comes down to your needs and what each person is most comfortable with. Maybe îþÐ should say what kind of website he's talking about to get a more specific answer.

Suzanne — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 01:44:09 +0000

Ha, you can always search and replace -- but you're assuming a pattern (random)? In a random pattern, you'd win. Anything with a pattern, we'd be neck and neck.

If I had years of experience with DW, I'd probably not be able to code so well in the raw (seriously). I've seen people seriously lose their skills.

The difference for me is that I'm no longer doing static sites. I can't see the point of static sites, so I use includes or database driven sites. Therefore, most of the stuff I need is snips and pieces, not full on templates. So for me (and I mean this -- there are lots of people who and do use Dreamweaver because they need it), it's not a good tool. It doesn't meet my needs.

zollet — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:21:06 +0000

Suzanne,

You can say whatever you want. The fact here is, I'm right, you're wrong. End of discussion! j/k

Seriously, what would have happened if you had lets say 2 years of experience with Dreamweaver? If you knew how to use all its handy features? Do you still think you could have created a complex (lots of tables and maybe even some frames) website as fast as you could have in Dreamweaver? I mean, let's say you've created a table that has about 50 colums all together. You've decided to add CSS style to about 30 of these columns (some here and some there). In Dreamweaver, you simply click on all of them and click once on the CSS style and it's done. How long would that take your way?

PS. There is no unique code for these 30 columns, they're just the same as the other 20 so you can't do search and replace.

Suzanne — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:26:06 +0000

For the record -- I've done tests with friends who rely on Dreamweaver (any version). There is no speed benefit.

Over the years I've developed an effective work strategy, which includes code snippets, and also includes in depth knowledge of what's happening "under the hood". I can code a complex table in the same time it takes someone using Dreamweaver to code it, assuming we are talking both the table code and the CSS to control it.

I'm not bragging, just stating that while you may like to drive an SUV, I know all the alleys and backroads and can get there at the same time as you on my bike, without dealing with traffic, or having to lay out so much $$.

I *prefer* biking. You *prefer* driving an SUV. That's your perogative, but it doesn't make your route better than mine, only different. What matters is that we both get there.

îþÐ — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:32:35 +0000

Looks like 1st page is a excellent resource.. no php support though

I might have to download it...