×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dreamweaver Is Dying; Long Live Drupal!

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the view-askew dept.

The Internet 318

Barence writes "Here's an interesting blog post by a designer who reckons Dreamweaver is dying. It's not Dreamweaver's fault, though. Nor is the problem Adobe and its development team — the last Dreamweaver CS4 version was the most impressive release in years. Moreover, although Microsoft Expression Web poses a far more credible threat than FrontPage could muster, Dreamweaver remains the best HTML/CSS page-based editor available. The real problem for Dreamweaver and for its users is that the nature of the web is changing dramatically."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

318 comments

1st post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099539)

you forgot to end the summary with
also, fuck you!

Re:1st post? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099597)

Congratulations on getting first post. A copy of Microsoft Windows Live Expression Web Express Edition is in the mail.

Death... in MY Dreamweaver? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099563)

I highly doubt this, I check NetCraft daily, and I've seen NO confirmation of Dreamweaver dying!

Is Dreamweaver good? (5, Interesting)

siDDis (961791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099615)

I've never tried it, when I do web design I do it with Gimp, Vim and Firebug. And I think that combo works great!

How do Dreamweaver compare to Vim? Is it advanced enough to not fool users to use css styled text for strong expressions?

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (5, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099767)

Troll? Why is this a Troll? People who actually know what they do don't need hand-holding. I agree: Gimp, Vim and Firebug is all one needs. (Add in a bit Inkscape too)

A designer might need Dreamweaver, but that's most likely because he doesn't know the underlying structures. Now, I admit, the Designer-Tech profile is quite seldom though ;-))

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (4, Informative)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100281)

I'm quite partial to Bluefish [openoffice.nl] myself for web development work.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27101119)

Try Aptana its a lot nicer than Bluefish for larger projects.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (5, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100693)

I use Notepad, MS Paint, and my browser to do my web design.

Now get off my lawn you hooligans!

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (2, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100985)

I use Notepad, MS Paint, and my browser to do my web design.

Now get off my lawn you hooligans!

What are you doing using a GUI? That just slows things down! I use nano to create my Gopher pages, and that's the way I likes it!

Think I'm joking? Check out my Slashdot user number...

Okay, I'm joking. :)

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (4, Funny)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101273)

I use a large stick to do my web design. How? Well, I go down to my basement and hit the Chinese illegal immigrant I have chained to my PC until he makes the page I want.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (0, Flamebait)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099851)

Is it advanced enough to not fool users to use css styled text for strong expressions?

No, it's not. In fact, it didn't really cope well with CSS at all, last time I checked. Dreamweaver was designed back when everyone was using tables to build sites. For that, it worked, because it's hard to screw up something that's all wrong from the beginning. Well, they did actually manage to screw it up anyway for a while, by loading up your HTML, and reformatting the whole thing just because you edited a line and then saved.

Basically, if you don't know at least CSS and HTML (preferably object oriented programming, MVC, database, design patterns, accessibility etc. too) then you've no place messing with web design, except for doing mockups in an art package.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (1)

Teckla (630646) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100225)

Basically, if you don't know at least CSS and HTML (preferably object oriented programming, MVC, database, design patterns, accessibility etc. too) then you've no place messing with web design, except for doing mockups in an art package.

There are a zillion "brochure" web sites out there, and not one of those web sites requires knowledge of CSS/HTML, OOP, MVC, DB, or design patterns.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100363)

Wow I never needed Design Pattens in HTML mm I must be missing something here, oo thats right you don't need a Database Design Patterns , all you need is validation, accessibility,HTML/CSS and you don't need to be an expert.

it's like you need to learn Data Structures to do Web Design lol

No business messing with the web? Bite Me (4, Insightful)

gadlaw (562280) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100427)

I'm just saying dude, that nobody died and made you Emperor of the Internet so you know, we're all perfectly able to mess around and build our own websites even without your permission. And even without knowing everything there is to know about CSS and HTML. Farkknocker.

Re:No business messing with the web? Bite Me (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100643)

Er, no, seriously, web "devs" who have no clue about accessibility have no business doing webdesign, GP is right on that one.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (0, Troll)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100479)

If you think the MVC pattern belongs in a web application, maybe it's you who should stick to mockups.

This isn't 1995. They're not desktop applications.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100665)

Try using Django. kthxbai

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (5, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100687)

I agree with you. There are web developers, and web amateurs. You can see them whining and bitching above.
They think that because they read a HTML book while driving the cab, and wrote 5-liners of JavaScript that you can replace with 10 characters of CSS, that they can call themselves "developers".

And because they live in groups, where everybody is like them, they think this is perfectly OK.

I saw companies where a group of 30 web "developers" decided to call functions a too abstract concept for a 16 million page-views PER DAY site! I saw people editing messy PHP/HTML-pages in Dreamweaver, with the *mouse only*. I saw so much server-side code copypasta inside million-dollar-business websites, that it make would someone at a real software company scream until the end of his life.

No structure, no grasp of basic concepts of engineering, no anything. And when the re-design came, it took them full two weeks including overtime, to change all their code everywhere. While I went home in the middle of the first day, after changing my master-templates. They wanted me to help out. But asked if my simple regular expressions would pose any danger (they thought it was black magic). And they got angry, when I replaced their thousand copies of the content box HTML with function calls to the template.
They needed nearly two years, to cope with it, until they implemented a bad version of it Europe-wide. Of course by then, I was so far in front of them, that it again was black magic to them (I started to program client-side web application clients -- What you would call AJAX today.)

I later realized, that such types only get their jobs, because their bosses are such types too. Up to the owner of the company. Which is the only person of the company in many cases.
And then they only have to live up to the clients' expectations. Of course the client never knows, that you could save him 90% of the cash by actually using real programming concepts like re-usability and modularity.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100775)

Please, there are no web "developers"!
People that "code" html or some pathetic AJAX (ha,ha,ha) are NOT developers or programmers by any means!
They are usually people with a high school diploma that get abused by some marketing company and are paid low wage to do something a machine can do better than them.
Call me a troll if you please, but I am just tired of this whole BS of web designers thinking they are coders...

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100939)

Agreed... I can design pages, have in the past, but I am by no means a coder. I fucking hate coding, some of the most boring shit on the planet.

This whole holier than thou attitude that oozes from these "web designers" really pisses me off. Oh, you can write a few lines of html or css or javasript, you must be a fucking god. Actually, no, you're not... you're just someone attempting to be a god but really you're just a boring fuck.

Mod parent up if you have half a brain.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101031)

Of course by then, I was so far in front of them, that it again was black magic to them

According to Clarke's Third Law, that means your web development skills are sufficiently advanced. Kudos!

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099857)

How would you apply CSS to something like "Shut the fuck up!"?

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (2, Funny)

Trails (629752) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100173)

#shutTheFuckUp{ /*put your style rules here*/
}

Shut the fuck up

There ya go.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (4, Funny)

risk one (1013529) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100471)

Surely you would want to use this more than once per page...

I would suggest something like:

.shut-the-fuck-up {
text-decoration: blink;
}

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100589)

div.intro:after{
content: "Shut the fuck up!";
}

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (5, Interesting)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099941)

Dreamweaver is a great tool. I've been using it almost since it came out. (It and Future Splash, a.k.a Flash.) I've never used the "designer" type tools in dreamweaver. I've always seen it as a really powerful development environment for building sites. The Site concept and integrated FTP / server management are great. Code hints are obviously convenient and I've always appreciated how granular the code coloring / formatting is. The CSS tools are invaluable for tracking down those times when things are cascading a bit differently than you'd like. I'm also a huge fan of the search / replace tools in Dreamweaver for refactoring. The ability to scan across a selection, open document, all open documents, or an entire site is really handy. I realize text editors have similar abilities but the Site concept makes scanning across countless directories a no-brainer.

There's gobs more but those are the first things that come to mind.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (2, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100749)

I had heard Dreamweaver was something interesting but I've found Dreamweaver to be remarkably sluggish and its regular expression support was lacking which surprised and aggravated me (given how many excellent non-copylefted free software regular expression libraries there are). Is most of Dreamweaver written in some interpreted language like Javascript? Also, it made no sense to me why I couldn't use any means of access, like SFTP, for both "local" and "remote" site definitions (or whatever they're called). I didn't get why I couldn't have as many site definitions as I wished and call them all what I wished. I'd much prefer to not have to export something via SMB or whatever protocol MacOS X allows (and last I looked it didn't let you use SFTP via the Finder's Go->Connect to Server... panel) just so one could edit a website synchronizing between two networked locations (one for testing, one for production). Dreamweaver only allowed one site definition ("remote" if I recall correctly) to use SFTP, not both "local" and "remote" and this seemed silly to me. Perhaps I missed a configuration detail but overall I was unimpressed and I ended up using SSI with far better free software text editors to edit the mostly static (X)HTML+CSS websites which are common in academia (meeting site needs and practically addressing website updater laborers). Then, from an admin perspective, knowing it came from Adobe (which is apparently quite slow with their security patches and has annoying licensing), is proprietary, and costly I found it significantly less than practical or attractive. My experience with Dreamweaver was simply not that good. Comparing Dreamweaver and Drupal, on the other hand, seems silly in an entirely different way as there is so much uncommon ground between what they can accomplish, and Drupal has plenty of annoyances all its own.

Re:Is Dreamweaver good? (3, Interesting)

SocialEngineer (673690) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099969)

Since we've got licenses for it at my day job, I use it as my preferred webdev/design IDE. It works fairly well for that sort of thing, but it's a bit of overkill for me (I'm not working on collab projects). Of course, I hand code everything. I'll say this much; it's a fast, responsive IDE regarding its UI, code highlighting, and more. When I'm doing my independent work, though, I usually use Geany for my coding, since it's multiplatform.

As a CMS, yeah, it's not very widely used anymore; why would someone use it, with so many CMS options available? A web based system is much, much more efficient, especially regarding cost. Anything that requires a software client, especially anything which requires paid licenses, is just asinine, in my professional opinion.

Long live Drupal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100581)

The last Dreamweaver I used was 4 so I am sure not up to speed on it. However I do work with Quanta, Bluefish, Gimp, Inkscape and all the other graphical tools available under Linux, and guess what? I hav'nt felt a need to go back to any big name products since I switched over.

Long live open source

Re:Long live Drupal? (2, Informative)

king-hobo (1303923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101181)

mm to be honest i found that this is one area that open source really cant keep up with. Quanta is by far the best open one out there but it lacks a lot when placed next to dreamwaver. i still use MX

Content Management System is not a design program (5, Interesting)

Hottie Parms (1364385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099627)

Drupal et al make life a whole lot easier when it comes to updating a website and adding content. But what about the design?

Unless you want to stick to the default Drupal (or insert CMS here) themes, you'll probably want to design your own CMS template so people get a unique feel for your website. You'll still need to fall back on your classic static web-design skills using programs like Dreamweaver (or notepad).

Dreamweaver isn't dying, it's just falling into a more specialized category now. If you just used Dreamweaver as a way to update content, then you were really failing to use the program to it's full potential.

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (2, Insightful)

greengreed (1330517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099707)

Don't forget Drupal modules. Themes and modules don't magically appear from the void, somebody writes them, and this requires an editor.

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (1)

Dallas Caley (1262692) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100671)

yes, an editor, such as notepad, or maybe textmate, but Dreamweaver attempts to do the WYSIWYG which is geared towards those people who don't really know how to code. Those people are better off with something like drupal where they can't accidentally go in and muck everything up, so they aren't using dreamweaver. Those of us who do know how to code however wouldn't waste their time learning how to use dreamweaver because we don't need it and it makes our code look like garbage. So yea, i think i agree. Dreamweaver should die.

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (2, Interesting)

gobbo (567674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101025)

Dreamweaver attempts to do the WYSIWYG which is geared towards those people who don't really know how to code.

DW has its place due to site management and debugging tools, and it doesn't force the wysiwyg. When I use it, it's usually with the mixed text/graphical view, because it is faster to zero in on certain parts of the code graphically by clicking there, then switching to the code pane.

Essentially, it's much faster to scan a picture than text, even if your markup is tidy, and it is nice to see the less-frequent available parameters for CSS in a pane rather than pull all of them from memory. DW's code has improved quite a bit over the years, too, it isn't the ugly mess it once was.

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (5, Insightful)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099807)

Well, developer has utmost freedom to redesign theme from scratch or mod currently available ones, here are some websites done in drupal, check it out:

  • http://www.warnerbrosrecords.com/
  • http://change.gov/
  • http://community.michaeljackson.com/
  • http://ketnet.be/
  • http://ngycp.org

more here [buytaert.net] and here [drupal.org].

I completely agree however, drupal != dreamweaver.

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (2, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099867)

It's true, and Dreamweaver's autocomplete is fantastic.

I don't think there is much place for the GUI in template design, but the text editor in Dreamweaver is worth the money if you are a designer at a lower skill level.

Considering one would need the other apps in the suite, keeping Dreamweaver will be a perk.

Adobe should focus on making it a full fledged AMP (and others really) testing environment and it would be potent.

Easy local testing, their sitemanager to sync with remote, fantastic text editor, and maybe even some integration for template previewing (maybe they do?). I personally only use it to help be remember the names of various CSS properties and what they can be set too, but there is definitely potential to make designers more comfortable with interfacing with the server, as they have tied to do from the start (and I hate).

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100729)

It's true, and Dreamweaver's autocomplete is fantastic.

Serious question - what is autocomplete actually *for*? I've used a few editors with code-completion features, and I've never really seen the point. All it seems to do is make the computer chug and whirr while it tries to guess what I'm typing, and fails, until eventually it gives up and lets me move onto the next command.

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (1)

genik76 (1193359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100835)

Maybe you should update to a 21st century computer, having the power to display a list of few items without swapping memory? ;)

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (4, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100007)

Yeah, this entire thing just sounds like FUD. Granted CMS's are the way to go for content updates but but unless you're a mom and pop shop you don't want to stick with a template... and that means hiring a designer... and that means using design tools.

CMS is just a fancy way of saying, "Keep the secretaries out of the friggin' HTML because they always screw it up." Handing Dreamweaver over to someone with no experience was always a joke.

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (0)

lavaface (685630) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100095)

Really, the best way is with a text editor. Dreamweaver is a pretty good program but it can't compete with a basic text editor (with tabs and the ability to save to FTP.) Most of the work is tweaking the CSS, although you will probably need to modify some other PHP files if you plan on doing extensive changes. With Firebug you can modify CSS and see the changes in real time. There are so many different styles of themes that you can save yourself a lot of work modifying an existing setup you like (three column, magazine, corporate, 2.0ish, etc.) BTW, this works for Wordpress too.

As far as intially designing mockups of what you want the site to look like, that's what Photoshop is for ;) Been doing this for years and I couldn't agree more.

Dreamweaver's a terrible design program too. (1)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100567)

Dreamweaver was never a good *design* tool, and I don't know how it ever got sold as one -- maybe the same way we got that horrible name "web designer" for client-side HTML coders.

It's potentially legitimate to call it a WYSIWYG page layout tool for HTML, but that's about the limit. You can't create arbitrary visual compositions with it, you're stuck with whatever metaphors Macrodobe lays on top of the limited tools HTML/CSS have to offer. You certainly can't create drawings of any kind.

If you want to do actual design, it's best to work in something with full vector and/or raster graphics capabilities like Illustrator or Photoshop (or better yet, Fireworks).

And herein lies the problem. Dreamweaver sortof sits in this odd intersection of niches that worked 10 years ago but doesn't work so well now. It isn't a great design tool. It is a decent WYSIWYG HTML layout tool, but it has increasing in-browser and in-CMS competition here. It's also a decent code editor, and I suspect this will be its last bastion of loyal users... but even there, I think it's going to have to fight to stay alive.

But I hope the idea that it's a *design* tool dies a swift death, and soon.

Re:Content Management System is not a design progr (1)

IronChef (164482) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100727)

Drupal et al make life a whole lot easier when it comes to updating a website and adding content. But what about the design?

Just install a Drupal module that generates new designs.

What?

No design needed (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099647)

It's true, most people who make sites in Drupal, Wordpress, etc. clearly didn't spend more than 10 minutes on the design.

Dreamweaver ain't going anywhere. (1)

bezking (1274298) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099699)

So besides the obvious open-sourceness, what distinguishes Dreamweaver from Eclipse PDT for PHP? If dreamweaver goes, why not Eclipse? While it is unlikely but not impossible that some SAAS package will replace the need for custom software, but who will develop the SAAS software? Hmmmmmmm.....

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099701)

Does Netcraft confirm it?

Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution (4, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099705)

Even Microsoft already did what had to be done for that. Integrate the tools with the content management system, duh!

Sharepoint Designer is pretty much Expression Web made to modify Sharepoint's dynamically generated pages. Point Sharepoint Designer to a Sharepoint site where you have required permissions, and have fun. All the power of a content management system, all the power of design and web development tool, all at the same place.

Adobe and Dreamweaver are in an even better position for this. They could work with the open source community, and various vendors (like Alfresco), and make Dreamweaver work the same way Sharepoint Designer works, but across a variety of content management system. The idea of something like Drupal and Alfresco with Dreamweaver having the same kind of integration as MOSS and Sharepoint Designer is quite exciting, in my opinion, and has far more potential.

Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution (3, Interesting)

risk one (1013529) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100409)

Point Sharepoint Designer to a Sharepoint site where you have required permissions, and have fun.

Fun? You must be joking. I've worked a lot with Sharepoint Designer and it's the most ungodly abomination of a software package I've ever had to touch. It makes the rest of Microsoft's applications look like they were made by NASA.

The whole of Sharepoint is gargantuan mess, from the half implemented API to the ridiculous, overcomplicated, undocumented deployment procedures (restarting the webserver every time you change code, really?), to the insane use of tables in the HTML (have a look at the html on an average system page, and see if your mind can deal with five or six tables wrapped around every single design element).

Sharepoint Designer is where you can really see Sharepoint for what it is. It has all these features that sound very nice, until you try to save an .aspx page and it replicates your previous change somewhere rather than the one you were currently checking in. You think "huh that's weird", delete, the extra code, rewrite the code you wanted to add, and check in again, and now the previous change appears three times. In the end the only solution is to delete the page and the associated content types from the site and create it again (and any pages that used it). That's the sort of wonderful behavior you can expect from Sharepoint Designer.

I've never used the WYSIWYG editor because, frankly, I'm scared.

Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100569)

restarting the webserver every time you change code, really?

Err, no, you don't.

Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution (2, Informative)

risk one (1013529) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100679)

Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about web parts.

Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution (3, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100761)

It doesn't matter. The most you'll ever need to do is recycle the application pool, and users won't even notice when you do aside for a slight lag if you don't have a load balancer.

Re:Adapt, don't die...and even MS has the solution (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100951)

Sharepoint Designer is pretty much Expression Web made to modify Sharepoint's dynamically generated pages. Point Sharepoint Designer to a Sharepoint site where you have required permissions, and have fun. All the power of a content management system, all the power of design and web development tool, all at the same place.

There are only two problems with that. One is that SP Designer is slow, buggy, and encourages nasty practices (such as writing inline ASP.NET code - it allows that, but not the code-behind model). Another is that when you need SharePoint to do something that it doesn't do out of the box, you have to deal with its extensibility mechanisms - and at that point you suddenly discover how crappy they actually are, and how scarce documentation is (half the articles for SP classes on MSDN don't even have method descriptions, just signatures!). To date, SharePoint development is probably the worst in Microsoft ecosystem - lacking docs, very bad tooling (the official VS integration plugin is a joke... even community made ones are better), and tons and tons of bugs.

Yes, I was a SharePoint developer for some (gladly, brief) period of time in my life. No more and never again. My wife still has to deal with that monster, though, so still get to hear it all pretty much every day.

Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099753)

Am I doing this right? The whole comparing 2 different things?

Re:Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! (3, Interesting)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099951)

Yes, the reasons for using each are very different. If your site is dynamic, Drupal is great. If your site is static, Dreamweaver is a really good tool. While it may seem that more and more sites are becoming dynamic, I'd argue that there are still -- and will always remain -- a very large number of static sites cared for by single developers that have no need of a CMS.

I know it's popular here to bash wysiwig editors (just write the code, dammit!), but Dreamweaver has gotten MUCH better since version 4.

It's code is good, it works well with Flash, CSS and JavaScript. And if you're a designer, the Photoshop integration is pretty fantastic. Personally, I use Dreamweaver primarily for the site management tools, which are also very good.

If you haven't used DW in the past 4 years, then you haven't used DW.

Re:Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100327)

It's not even a static/dynamic difference. Dreamweaver is a website design tool, Drupal is a website management tool. A smart person would use both; design the look & feel with Dreamweaver, then convert the design into a Drupal template.

Re:Microsoft is dying, long live McDonalds! (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100351)

I use dreamweaver and it is fully competent.

I see no need to use the wysiwyg elements in dreamweaver or in any other ide.

Just type out your code.

The concept is more generic (5, Insightful)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099771)

Veryu misleading title. The story isn't about Dreamweaver but the dying of static HTML editing tools of any kind, contrasting them to the changing web. The web is becoming more dynamic. Some HTML editing tools are very static. Therein lies the problem for the old tools.

First the Concept, then the Security (2, Insightful)

cmholm (69081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099847)

The parent is correct, this is a static vs. dynamic web transition. I suppose "DREAMWEAVER is DEAD" is catchier.

Now, if we can just get ahead of the game on plugging those CMS security holes.

Re:The concept is more generic (2, Interesting)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100159)

Agreed.

The great majority of what I do are PHP based homegrown CMS type sites. I use Dreamweaver to manage the code, I use Photoshop and Illustrator for the graphics, and I use Firebug to figure out the CSS.

I don't use Dreamweaver to it's fullest potential because I no longer do a lot of static HTML stuff, but I still find Dreamweaver useful for PHP, JavaScript and CSS coding, probably because I've been using it for 6 years.

Re:The concept is more generic (1)

risk one (1013529) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100517)

And to think, if only he'd written this article ten years ago, he would have actually made a fairly obvious, marginally relevant point. It's just unfair is what it is.

Drupal.org (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099801)

And here I thought Drupal was a cross-dresser from the early '90s. Boy, I was *way* off.

still relevant to moms everywhere (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099859)

Dreamweaver will always have a place next to microsoft word for helping moms everywhere create hideous, 1990's-era web pages.

Posted anonymously because I have one of those moms, and I'd hate to break her heart. She things her pages are awesome.

Good riddance. (5, Informative)

jonadab (583620) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099881)

I've seen some of the HTML these tools (Frontweaver, Dreampage, HotMetal, etc) produce, and I Do Not Want It.

I use Emacs and w3schools, and my HTML is clean, scalable, efficient, reasonably accessible, and very maintainable, and honestly I don't spend that much time on it. HTML is, fundamentally, very easy, once you know what you're doing.

In terms of keeping all the pages on a site updated with side-wide changes, I mostly use a combination of keyboard macros, custom elisp, Perl, regular expressions, chewing gum, and bailing wire. But it works, and it works the way I *want* it to work.

As far as Drupal, though, I thought that was a CMS. Do people really try to use it as an HTML editor? Ugh.

Re:Good riddance. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100053)

Do people really try to use it as an HTML editor?

The point is that once you've got the template set up (or downloaded a theme or whatever), you DON'T use an html editor anymore. You type your content into your little box and hit the save button.

Or did you use Dreamweaver to write your comment here?

Re:Good riddance. (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100319)

Didn't these programs used to produce Spaghetti with &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp?

I'm on the next tree over from you, except I'm going even more basic with notepad, because I never got around to looking at emacs etc.

What is this "dynamic content" anyway? Some page with 7 comments of "nice page lulz"? Skip that, it offends my sense of style.

I'm not sure I get this whole "CMS" thing, since I have an 80-page design template. I only have about 7 of the max 40ish articles written anyway. (And "Article" is not the 4 paragraph junk we keep seeing here festooned with ads...)

I rather think some of the New Coke of the web should die out and let people go back to writing Classic articles. As an example (beyond my humble powers!) here is Mark Russinovich's blog.

http://blogs.technet.com/MarkRussinovich/ [technet.com]

THAT's content.

Re:Good riddance. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101063)

The content on that site is dynamically inserted into a template and the site has commenting features...

Re:Good riddance. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100343)

This is the classic software tools for a programmer concerned with job security. Cobble together some text mode software designed for the age of teletypes and brag about how clever you are to make it work (sometimes). These are the first resumes I toss when they cross my desk.

this is preposterous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099983)

Big surprise, its easier to manage a large site with a CMS rather than using global find and replace. Sites have been modular for years, does no one remember server side includes? It has nothing to do with Dreamweaver the application, which is a fine editor. Besides there are plenty of sites that don't need dynamic content, RSS feeds, comments and blogs, sometimes you just need to put out clear and concise information on a well designed page. Why wouldn't you use Dreamweaver for that?

Not really arguing, but... (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099997)

From the blog post:

The bottom line is that the old model of the central webmaster hand-spinning every page of every website and, worse, manually adding the navigation necessary to help users find it, just isnâ(TM)t scalable or viable. The only feasible course for the future is for content to be posted by the content contributor, whether thatâ(TM)s the site owner or site visitors, and for the best possible navigation to be constructed around that content on the fly.

This particular paragraph leads me to think the author has never actually used Dreamweaver - he certainly doesn't even understand the fundamental concept of "templates". I mean, who is manually adding navigation to a large site on a page by page basis?

Thing is, there are a lot of circumstances where "Web 2.0", in the limited sense the author seems to understand (that is, end-users providing added content), doesn't do much for you. There are only a few places on your typical corporate or government web site, for example, where this would make sense. Certainly there are specific applications where this would be handy; but they're fairly narrow and can be handled well by adding some wiki software alongside the "mainstream" website.

Now the tools of Web 2.0 - e.g. dynamic, javascript-driven pages with sql backends - are a different matter. But really Dreamweaver-style templating works just fine with those, IMHO, to the degree one is going to use any tool to make those pages anyway (meaning there's a significant amount of hand-coding happening with the page-specific content).

Personally speaking, I've found Dreamweaver templates (that I've put together) very handy when combined with Contribute. Really the templating is mostly what I use it for; both for allowing other staff to easily maintain content and letting me easily push section-wide and/or site-wide changes to our several-thousand-page web site (templates can be nested, which is quite handy). I know I'm only using a fairly restricted subset of what all Dreamweaver can do; but it does that pretty darn well. Certainly other software can also do this - but I haven't seen anything that works quite as well in all regards.

Dreamweaver code sucks (2, Insightful)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100019)

The real problem is dreamweaver code sucks compared to anything a decent programmer can just type out in notepad. The question becomes, would you rather use an open source CMS, code your own theme and get good code. Or would rather blow $400 on a piece of software that's going to spew out something totally unusable. Investing a little bit of time learning how to do css goes a long way.

Re:Dreamweaver code sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100553)

Or maybe the question becomes: Would you rather pay $400 once on a piece of software and learn how to use it well, or would you like to hire someone to do that for you, repeatedly?

Re:Dreamweaver code sucks (1)

jsmiith (1274436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100583)

Seriously, have you used Dreamweaver? dreamweaver is far from one of those point-and-click WYSIWYG website creators of the 90s. I would wager that you would not be able to tell the difference from something created in dreamweaver and something created in, say, emacs.(provided, of course, that the creator is proficient in html+css)

wysiwyg was always destined to die (4, Insightful)

jperl (1453911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100047)

the best html/css editor is any editor with syntax highlighting used in combination with brain.

Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100885)

Of course, wysiwyg is just one of Dreamweaver's features, and I dont think its the most used among professionals. I haven't used it in a long time, but back then we used it for workflow integration, script debugging, code analysis (like checking broken links and quickly testing for code correctness), template generations, plugins, etc.

The wysiwyg was only used a "real time semi-preview", and it was okay-ish at that.

Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100965)

Dreamweaver always had a very powerful HTML/CSS code editing mode. All people that I knew who used it professionally always worked in that mode, and only occasionally used the "WYSIWYG" mode as a quick preview.

Re:wysiwyg was always destined to die (1)

meep116 (876803) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101217)

Dreamweaver has a very good editor with syntax highlighting. Just because it can do WYSIWYG with it doesn't mean it can only do WYSIWYG editing.

What a spam article! (2, Insightful)

purpleraison (1042004) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100123)

Yes, it's true we web-designers can (and generally) do use simple code editors to write our pages, templates and CSS stylesheets; the fact is that there is an ever-growing population of people who want to make their own website, not just pre-compiled garbage templates that Drupal users install- but real personal templates made by the site owners themselves... in order to do that they need a good editor that HELPS them- Dreamweaver does that.

Also, seriously, WTF does Drupal have to do with it? Sure, I'm not knocking Drupal I've used it on some projects, but it has nothing to do with the REAL tools required to do a job (mainly a brain, fingers, and motivation).

Code Editor (2, Informative)

allscan (1030606) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100129)

Lets not forget that Dreamweaver does more than WYSIWYG sites, it has a pretty decent code editor in it with built in libraries for JS, .NET, ColdFusion, HTML, JSP, PHP, ActionScript, Java, and others. I've actually used it quite extensively for straight code as it does a decent job of highlighting tags and the project organization is pretty nice too.

Good. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100147)

Dreamweaver Is Dying

As Richter said in Total Recall: "About damn time."

Re:Good. (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100445)

Dreamweaver Is Dying

As Richter said in Total Recall: "About damn time."

Andy Richter was in Total Recall?

Man, I gotta watch that movie again...

Re:Good. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100719)

Dreamweaver Is Dying

As Richter said in Total Recall: "About damn time."

Andy Richter was in Total Recall?

Man, I gotta watch that movie again...

Well, I've noticed that in a certain light from just the right angle, Michael Ironside is a dead ringer for Andy Richter.

Of course it's dying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100207)

no one wants to pay $200+ for it.

I hand code (2, Insightful)

MazzThePianoman (996530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100217)

I have opened up Dreamweaver a few times but prefer doing things by hand in Notepad++. There are plenty of free and open bulletproof css templates for getting the basic layout of any site started and from there diving into your own code helps you better understand what you are doing. I am sure Dreamweaver has its own crowd but between a good CMS and hand coding I have never felt behind the curve.

Hang in there, Dreamweaver (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100435)

Come on, Dreamweaver, you've never given up on anything in your life! There still may be some time... Everything's going to be OK. Say it with me: "I believe we can reach the morning light".

Weaving Drupal (1)

lilfields (961485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100591)

I use both of them, along with Photoshop to design some websites, you still have to get the templates set up if you want a unique style in Drupal...it's like saying that Wordpress is going to kill Dreamweaver. This web designer needs to be smacked.

Common Editors (0)

kevin7kal (698673) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100779)

Are the editors of Slashdot so ignorant to the existence of content management systems to let this article through? One persons exuberance towards a particular content management system does not make a news worthy article. The author speaks of Drupal like he's discovering sliced bread. Plone as a CMS has been around for years, as have others.

His argument is flawed (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100805)

While a lot of personal sites clearly don't put any effort into design, professional sites do and you won't do that in Drupal.

I've used DreamWaver from version 4 when they two versions up to CS3. Admittedly I've used each version less than the previous. I only used CS3 a few times because it's on my work PC. The biggest downside for me is that Dreamweaver doesn't run on Linux without using Wine and I rather not deal with DW under Wine. Plus DW does still feel a bit more designer oriented and I'm doing more serious development.

I personally have some issues with DreamWeaver. It's very good but for the cost it's not worth it compared to the competition for proper development. However I think web designers, mac users and other "trendy" people still love it.

Re:His argument is flawed (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101123)

mac users

Not this one. I do use Dreamweaver on the Mac but it's a total pile of junk. It might have got better in recent versions (I'm still using the MX 2004 version), but it's so buggy and slow it's embarrassing. Real Mac web developers use Coda.

Dreamweaver won't entirely die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100901)

Sure CMS is becoming the main thing but anytime a client wants a nice custom site you can create the theme for the CMS in Dreamweaver. In other words it's role is shifting.

Let me know when the funeral is (2, Interesting)

Dracos (107777) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100981)

... so I can neglect to send flowers.

For too long, too many self-described "web designers" have relied on Dreamweaver and its ilk to do their jobs for them. These people are not "web designers", they are graphic designers who think web documents are a blank canvas to be painted on, such as when they open a new file in Photoshop or Illustrator. The web is not a 3-panel brochure.

This delusion is fostered by their uninformed clients and bosses who only consider what looks good and how fast (cheap) it is produced. Little explicit attention is paid to usability, readability, or accessibility.

Good riddance, I say. The day these monkeys no longer have a crutch can not come soon enough.

Dreamweaver for templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27101015)

Can't you use Dreamweaver to make Drupal templates?

Right tool for the right job (3, Informative)

deanston (1252868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101161)

Dreamweaver was great if you want to code ColdFusion, Flash, and Flex. For a full IDE it beats Visual Studio in many features. Eclipse and other free "IDE" don't come close in terms of responsiveness and user friendliness. The problem is CF/Flex is a small percentage of the web compared to PHP, ASP.NET, Java, and a host of new platforms and frameworks (Django, ROR, etc.). Now with the advent of open source CMS and wiki systems, even for .NET, plus free plug-ins for Eclipse to code just about anything, along with shrinking IT budget, WHY would anyone pay the equivalent for full VS for it? The Server + IDE has been Adobe's bread and butter for years, that's why it's critical for Adobe to keep pushing for AIR/Flash. The only way to make DW popular again I can see is embrace open source languages and new frameworks, and lower the price.

Is there a CMS that doesn't suck? (1)

ifchairscouldtalk (1031944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101201)

Can anybody suggest a good, simple, and reliable CMS with a sane clean interface for those with simple needs? Something like CushyCMS [cushycms.com], but which allows users to add new pages/content? Thanks!

But Drupal, etc. are U-G-L-Y (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101251)

One problem has persisted from desktop programming to web programming is that just because you can code doesn't mean you can make good design. Just as most Windows software are ugly as heck, I find most CMS all so cookie-cutter dreadful and difficult to enhance. What these new web programming frameworks all lack is some good designers on their team.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...