As far as my opinions on the XML methodologies, your answer that some things
have to be learned is kind of a slippery-slope argument ... if you argue
that some things just have to be done by hand in regards to XML, what
happens if someone argues the same defense for tables or links? At what
point to you draw the line? As XML becomes more and more widespread (not
that it's not already) it will be as indespensible a tool as links and
tables and layers. And BTW ... I already use XML in my applications, not
trying to avoid learning it, just thought it would be nice to have a more
visual approach to using some of the more common doc types. Same for XSL ...
what's so "off the wall" about XSL in a visual environment? Isn't that the
goal of UD/DW? To make complex code simpler? Very few individuals are going
to not learn JavaScript because DW does some major functions for you, same
with XSL/XML ... it's really not that far-fetched.
"Again, easy tiger why not ustilise the MSXML DOM to extend XML support the
tools are present.?" Well why not write all the CSS by hand and all the
JavaScript by hand and all the database connectivity by hand and use MSWORD
to write your web apps? Why do you use UD at all? Of course there are other
ways to do it, that's not the point.
"Wow, why not add a wizard which will do all the work for you and you still
get paid :-)" This is what people used to say about DW and other WYSIWYG
editors - very ignorant and short-sighted people said things like this. :-)
I understand that DW and UD are seperate apps ... that's why I was baffled
by the 1.0 to 4.0 jump ... you say in one line that they're seperate
applications not to be confused with one another and in another line you say
they joined the 2 to avoid confusion. If they're seperate apps, then UD is
version 2.0 ... not to be confused with Dreamweaver 4.0 It's just like
Adobe's fusion of ImageReady into Photoshop ... it's PhotoShop 5.5 with
ImageReady 2.0 packaged with it. Not really a major issue, just wondered why
that happened.
"I have not seen much of a difference in development time though, as I am
equally at home with both prods." Good for you, but this is MY opinion now
isn't it? I have obviously experienced difference in development time and
wished to add my views to the list. Not all of us work the same my friend
.... some of us are more visual persons and some of us are not. I believe
UD/DW is designed for the visual thinker and worker - thus the S in WYSIWYG.
"Duh, so has M$ Word, but thats not the point is it? The code editor is
more of a tweaker of code (if you dont write by hand already) It is designed
to be simple so that you try and keep the hardcore coders in the DW/UD
environment." This just makes no sense at all. Why would the hardcore coders
be in the UD/DW environment in the first place? This is like saying "We're
going to keep the beer outside the bar to keep the hardcore drinkers inside
the bar." I'd personally like to see a more robust editor inside UD ... that
would keep me inside the UD environment. I currently hand-code all my CF as
it's way better than working in the UD environment... I switch to UD/DW only
to make visual edits to the layout. If it had a nice editor then I'd work in
the editor until I needed the visual and then close the editor and move to
the visual without having a copy open in DW and a copy open in CFStudio and
having 2 apps running on my "Not the fastest horse" notebook. I think the
idea here is to make a product that competes with Studio on some level ...
that's why we've been asked to give our views.
Joshua Miller
Web Development
Eagle Technologies Group, Inc.
Business Solutions for the Next Generation
www.eagletgi.com <http://www.eagletgi.com>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:25 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Dreamweaver UltraDev 4.0 and Cold Fusion
Joshua, hopefully this will fill you in...1st of, dont confuse DW and UD as
the same product they are not. They may have the same functionality to a
certain degree butw where DW stops, UD takes over in the Database sections.
>>1. Notepad has all the features of the Dreamweaver/UD code editor
(sans-color-coding)
Duh, so has M$ Word, but thats not the point is it? The code editor is
more of a tweaker of code (if you dont write by hand already) It is designed
to be simple so that you try and keep the hardcore coders in the DW/UD
environment.
>>2. No tag insight
Not true. It has got a tag insight, well not the lazy 'fill the rest of my
string in as I can't be arsed' functionality but it has the Xcellent
O'Reilly reference built into it, which IMHO is far better that a tag
insight as it gives you much more info. A good learning tool if nothing
else - you would be surprised how many poeple still dont know browser
indifferences.
>>3. No document tree window for editing multiple docs from the same editor
>>interface.
Well if you have been using DW from ver.1 you would know that this was
a point raised and was decided to keep - a good percentage of DW/UD is done
in Javascript which allows for its excellent exstensibility and I would
assume, but dont quote me, that it has something to do with that - i.e.
seperate calls to the DOM to render pages. I have not seen much of a
difference in development time though, as I am equally at home with both
prods.
>>4. Limited Shortcuts in the editor view
What do you mean? the program is packed full of keyboard shortcuts!!
You can move them, define your own - whatever!!! thats the beauty of it - or
do you want pretty pictures to guid you through the app? :-)
>>1. Built in XML parser that recognizes standard XML formats (doc book,
RDF,
etc.) and will output XML files into CF/ASP/JSP pages using CFFILE or
comparable functions in the other languages.
Wow, why not add a wizard which will do all the work for you and you
still get paid :-) <LOL> some things have to be learnt my man.....
>>2. Built in XSL parser - assign XML elements CSS properties in a visual
environment.
Again, easy tiger why not ustilise the MSXML DOM to extend XML support the
tools are present.?
>>3. Support for Fusebox and other CF-related methodologies (CFOBJECTS,
etc.)
Will never happen, not by Macromedia, unless they become 'standards'
supported by Allaire - which we all know will never happen - they have
Spectra now.
>>By the way, what happened to UltraDev 2.0 and 3.0? Can you really just
jump
>>from 1.0 to 4.0 in one version? Sounds a little Netscape-ish to me :)
Well, the decision was made to use the version 4 tag as they were basically
bolting on UD2 into Dreamweaver 3. To avoid confusion of realeasing
Dreamweaver 4 and Dreamweaver Ultradev 2. So they bumped up the number to
4. It is not Crapscapish by any means, DW comes in 2 flavours, Dreamweaver
& Dreamweaver Uldradev (DW in steroids)
HTH
Neil
<! -----------------------------------
Neil Clark
Senior Web Applications Engineer
ColdFusion / Spectra / XML
mcb digital [Allaire Premium Partner]
Tel. +44 (0)20 8941 3232
Tel. +44 (0)20 8408 8131 [Direct]
http://www.mcbdigital.com
----------------------------------->
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
