Re: Better than Dreamweaver
by =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Bergeron <stephberg(at)videotron.ca>
|
Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:13:34 -0500 |
To: |
hwg-software(at)hwg.org |
References: |
amenco amenco2 |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
At 10:14 AM 10/01/01 -0800, you wrote:
>I have used earlier versions of GoLive and prefer Dreamweaver. But --=20
>there are many, many who prefer GoLive and really, both are excellent=20
>choices. Your question implies that you don't regard Dreamweaver as=20
>high-end or professional and I think that's a mistaken notion. Both these=
=20
>products are on a par in that respect and both are used by plenty of=20
>high-end sites.
Actually, from my own informal survey and from many articles I read,=20
Dreamweaver is used a lot more than GoLive by professional Web developers=20
and designers for mainly two reasons. First is the quality of the code it=
=20
writes which is far better and less bloated than GoLive's code. The=20
earlier versions of GoLive were especially bad at creating useless junk and=
=20
non-existent and invalid tag & attributes which made it almost worse than=20
Front Page in that respect but the latest GoLive version has gotten much=20
better about this. Dreamweaver still has the edge there though and the=20
latest version of DW has added many code centric features that make it an=20
even more compelling choice for those designers who can code HTML and crave=
=20
real control over their pages. In my book, intimate knowledge of HTML is=20
an absolute must to be a professional in this business. I myself have been=
=20
using HomeSite a lot less since I got Dreamweaver UltraDev 4 because of=20
those new code centric features.
The second reason I consider DW superior to GoLive and why I think it is=20
more widely used is that the Dreamweaver interface is much better suited to=
=20
Web work than GoLive's who's interface may feel natural to the PageMaker=20
crowd but not to Web designers who know and are comfortable with the quirks=
=20
and limitations of the Web as a medium (as they should be) where pixel=20
perfect accuracy is impossible across users systems. As an example to=20
illustrate this, something as simple as moving an image a few pixels in any=
=20
direction is impossible in Dreamweaver unless you first put that image in=20
an absolutely positioned CSS layer. Using CSS layers has to be a conscious=
=20
choice on the designer's part because it limits the site's audience to 4.0=
=20
browsers and above and might even be problematic in NN 4. GoLive basically=
=20
shields designers from all that happens in the background and makes many=20
assumptions such as the example above so the impression of "control" that=20
the GoLive interface gives them is somewhat illusory.
Other reasons professional developers use it more are its better Site=20
management tools and its endless extensibility. Dreamweaver 4 also adds=20
asset management in a central panel, the ability to create Flash buttons=20
right with DW's environment (without needing to have Flash installed), a=20
JavaScript debugger, split code and design view, site reporting (reports=20
broken links, orphaned files, missing ALT attributes, untitled documents=20
and much more), WebDav AND Visual SourceSafe integration, tighter than=20
ever integration with Fireworks 4 and more. By all means try all the=20
editors you want but Dreamweaver truly is the high end of WYSIWYG tools and=
=20
is used the most by professionals and with good reason.
HTH!
St=E9phane Bergeron
>You already have Dreamweaver so by all means try GoLive's 30-day trial=20
>using the link Lynn gave:
>
>>30 days free:
>><http://www.adobe.com/products/golive/tryreg.html>
>
>And for the benefit of lurkers, try both! Here is the Dreamweaver 30-day=20
>trial:
>
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/trial/
HWG: hwg-software mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA