Beta
×

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!

Microsoft Expression vs. Dreamweaver

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the drink-the-kool-aid dept.

222

An anonymous reader writes "Informit has a quick look at Microsoft's Expression suite consisting of Graphic Designer, Interactive Designer, and Web Designer in comparison to Dreamweaver. It seems that Microsoft got tired of relying on FrontPage and is actually going after professionals. From the article: 'What designers might not realize is that Microsoft finally drank the Kool-Aid. The Expression Web Designer application walks the Web standards walk. One caution: Web Designer currently only supports ASP.NET. Microsoft built the ASP.NET platform; it isn't a surprise that Expression Web Designer was designed to support that platform. This is obviously a drawback for those designers who work with PHP, JSP, and other non-ASP.NET platforms, making it difficult for Microsoft to expand its reach beyond the ASP.NET users.'"

cancel ×

222 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So.... (-1, Offtopic)

#include (130485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030473)

is this, um, a frist psot? Or not?

Beep.

fngurh=ghhhh (1)

Helen Keller (842669) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030481)

psOTTT

neither works (-1, Troll)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030482)

These apsp don't work at all they will not even install on my system, anybody has a link to a deb package for theses? sheesh

Re:neither works (2, Interesting)

Fyre2012 (762907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030583)

Though you're clearly trolling, the lack of a linux 'equivilant' to Dreamweaver is the only reason I still dual boot.

Sure some prorgams compare, but at this stage Dreamweaver, IMO, is top shelf. Here's hoping /. will prove me otherwise =)

Re:neither works (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030731)

I'm not going to say it's as good as DreamWeaver, but for free Nvu is awesome. Installs with 'sudo apt-get install nvu' in Ubuntu and Debian. I personally download free DreamWeaver templates, and use Nvu from there.

I no longer dual-boot myself. I'm 100% Linux. However, I do miss those rock'in games.

Re:neither works (1)

FST777 (913657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030946)

I solely use Quanta for webdevving, but I'm sure that's just me... But still you might want to give it a go...

Re:neither works (4, Interesting)

orasio (188021) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031015)

I have been talking with good designer friends for ages about that issue.
What I have come to understand is that Dreamweaver is a great app for web development.
What I finally understood, and they confirmed, is that the wysiwyg part of Dreamweaver is not what makes it so great.
They love it for the integration it provides, and powerful management of project (searches, publishing, that kind of stuff).
They don't use the visual editing, because it doesn't produce profesional output, and editing right into the code view is much more reliable.

If that is your case too, plus, you are proficient with common console tools, like grep/diff, and using shell scripts to perform batch jobs like changing jpegs resolutions, you can replace Dreamweaver with Quanta Plus, or the lighter Bluefish. All the help you need for editing html and css. And remember to install ies4linux , so you can see the result on IE, too.

If that is not your case, keep DreamWeaver and try to be happy. But stay away from NVU, that's only useful for mockups or very quick and small stuff.

hmmm (5, Insightful)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030485)

It seems that Microsoft got tired of relying on FrontPage and is actually going after professionals. ... This is obviously a drawback for those designers who work with PHP, JSP, and other non-ASP.NET platforms

Yeah, it really sounds like they're going after professionals. (rolleyes)

Re:hmmm (2, Insightful)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030703)

Well if a "developer" is dumb enough to lock themselves into ASP.Net, then I hope they use this. Serves them right... The problem is that there really are plenty of Microsoft trained drones out there who have absolutely no idea what exists outside of Microsoft's nice soft world for dummies, and no interest in learning anything ourside of Microsoft either. Which is the way MS likes its monkeys - dumb, and uninterested in expanding their skill set.

hmmm-tomfoolery. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030769)

Hehe. You keep thinking that sitting by the phone. While I'll be interviewing for well paying jobs.

Re:hmmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030913)

Well if a "developer" is dumb enough to lock themselves into ASP.Net, then I hope they use this. Serves them right... The problem is that there really are plenty of Microsoft trained drones out there who have absolutely no idea what exists outside of Microsoft's nice soft world for dummies, and no interest in learning anything ourside of Microsoft either. Which is the way MS likes its monkeys - dumb, and uninterested in expanding their skill set.
You sure have an open mind about people that have different priorities and make different choices than yourself.

Re:hmmm (5, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030963)

"Serves them right... The problem is that there really are plenty of Microsoft trained drones out there who have absolutely no idea what exists outside of Microsoft's nice soft world for dummies, and no interest in learning anything ourside of Microsoft either."

My idea of a "dummy" is someone who doesn't use every advantage to get it done better, faster and cheaper because they fear they might be doing it the "soft" way. You can't live on programming "manliness".

If you think non-MS tools achieve that goal better, more power to you. But if those non-MS tools start looking "soft" someday, don't let that scare you from using them unless you find a more effective alternative.

Re:hmmm (5, Insightful)

guibaby (192136) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031055)

Umm....I can program in perl, C++, TSQL, and C#. I do 99% of my programming in C#/TSQL/ASP.NET. The reason is simple. It is the quickest way to get the job done. I like C# so much, that if I were going to do UNIX work (and I am qualified to), I would probably use mono. I enjoy bashing microsoft as much as the next guy, but they do some things right.
 

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030762)

Yeah! Great comment! Everybody knows that M$ developers aren't professionals. That's why, unlike PHP developers, they don't make the big bucks, right? PHP is where all the money is. Microsoft stupid! Yeah!!!

Re:hmmm (1)

abandonment (739466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030894)

if you don't think that there are plenty of good paying jobs doing rewarding php/lamp development then you are either living in the wrong city or need to be doing contracting.

there are a LOT of clients that specifically look for non-MS solutions, and if they aren't, you can educate them about the world of stable, easy to develop for software ;}

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030984)

*woosh*

Re:hmmm (4, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030885)

As a professional I can follow up on this remark. "Whatever tool fits the job." MS in some cases is best but rarely. Most often is is a LAMP platform or LAPP platform unless the requirements dictate a more serious DB, DB2 or Oracle fit the bill in which case it is a LAOJ (Linux, Apache, Oracle and JSP) solution.

Again, rarely, rarely is it ever a MS, IIS, MSSQL, .NET solution (MIM.N for those in the know)..... simply because those systems/apps don't provide anything substantially better than the license free options (dependent on whether the client has ignorantly already paid for them, in which case they are fine solutions).

 

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16031029)

a MS, IIS, MSSQL, .NET solution (MIM.N for those in the know)....

Making up your own acronyms and sounding superior because you use it really makes you look professional.

Difficult? For what? (5, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030486)

"This is obviously a drawback for those designers who work with PHP, JSP, and other non-ASP.NET platforms, making it difficult for Microsoft to expand its reach beyond the ASP.NET users.'"

I think what this is designed to do is ensure that other Open (or even not so open) standards are used in decreasing frequency as MS pushes people to this package that's designed to work with their server platforms. After all, if you are running a MS web server on Windows Server 2### or XP Pro, designing pages with this is "ideal", so why spend the time using/learning/running PHP/JSP/etc when you have an all in one app to integrate it all for you?

My opinion is its another attempt by MS to leverage their market share (in installed servers) to gain a bigger foothold in other areas (ie: kill PHP/JSP/etc).

-Robert

Re:Difficult? For what? (5, Insightful)

mdhoover (856288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030500)

Most likely it is there to keep their current fanclub happy in an attempt to try to stop the developer bleed off to JSP/PHP/etc.

Re:Difficult? For what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030594)

Or maybe, just maybe, given a limited set of time and resources, focusing on their preferred platform and letting plug-in vendors extend their product made more economic sense.

But of course that would never happen in a company that makes and sells software for money.
It's obviously an MS conspiracy to use their (lack of) market dominance to kill PHP/JSP by not offering features that their main (market-dominant) competitor has.

Me thinks someone's hat is a bit heavy on aluminium today.
Unless the lack of integration means the product searches and deletes all your .jsp files, but I didn't find that feature mentioned in the article.

Re:Difficult? For what? (4, Interesting)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030934)

I worked this summer in an all-MS company. I left it using PHP, MySQL, and Apache.

Businesses have this "comfort" mindset that if it is MS software, it will integrate ok. They won't be 5 years down the road saying, "I wish we had done it the other way."
The company I worked for does just under $100M USD per year, so they are not especially small, but also not especially large. MS's main selling point is that a business like that can use MS products because they integrate everything together. There were fears about going onto other platforms because you might (oh my god!) have to hire an employee who knows how to run an enterprise-class software operation. This costs lots of $$ and people who can do that are few and far between.

ASP.NET was brought alone to keep developers in these mid-sized corporations from going to technoligies like JSP, servlets, etc. The problem is no one at the company wants to hire anyone who knows how to do either the open source or windows. It's a catch-22: Can't get the nice customer-integrated website because we don't know Java or C#, but we are taking an awful risk if we hire several people at 70K-120K per year to get this thing for us.

Thus Microsoft has a vast untapped user base that they are trying to persuade to businesses hire those software engineers who can write the killer apps for the company. ASP.NET was the MS answer to JSP, but what MS didn't realize when they spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing .NET that companies like the one I worked for are too small to hire a dedicated Java or C# programmer for web programming. I don't think they're trying to kill JSP- they will never succeed in doing that. Java has many advantages over C# and large corporations that run in heterogenious environments are going to choose Java.

So, with untapped user base = untapped money for MS. They saw a "hole" in their solution for businesses when JSP came out, and they are trying to plug it right now.

So In Other Words (5, Insightful)

colonslashslash (762464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030488)

Designer currently only supports ASP.NET. Microsoft built the ASP.NET platform...


So in other words, it's completely useless to many of us web developers, and isn't directly comparable with Dreamweaver? Thought so.

Re:So In Other Words (2, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030512)

So in other words, it's completely useless to many of us web developers, and isn't directly comparable with Dreamweaver?

Or, in other other words, it's another tool to put in your kit, that may be useful if you ever have to build or maintain an asp.net site.

Re:So In Other Words (3, Insightful)

colonslashslash (762464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030547)

Duplicating functionality that is already in Dreamweaver at the expense of an additonal license fee? What's the point?


Seems like this would be akin to having Adobe Swiss Army Knife and then going out and paying for Microsoft © Spork © ® XP © Pro Corporate Ultimate Extended EULA Edition. ;)

Re:So In Other Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030597)

This is just another example of Microsoft putting themselves ahead of potential customers---or even existing customers---in another lame attempt to lock-in absolutely everybody with more shitty software and "MS standards".

Do they believe that all of the people creating 'My Very First Webpage!'-type websites with FrontPage will be the PHP developers of tomorrow...people that MS hope to corral now?

Pro devs ignored FrontPage, quite rightly, and pro devs will continue to ignore MS web code-mangling products.

My only fear is that professionals will gradually be replaced by faux-pros, brought up on shit like FrontPage and Expression...that would not auger well for website development as a whole.

Unless of course you like OMGPONIEZ!!!!!!!11 YouTube blogs, in which case you'll think it's a great idea.

pride, ignorance, irrelivance (1)

(fagging beta) (983460) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030614)

Hey, have you ever used ASP.NET? No? Yet you feel qualified to talk about how pointless this software is and how its not worth the license fee?

Well thank you very much, another uninformed comment to thrust on the shit heap that is slashdot. Outfuckingstanding.

Keep em coming, asshole, because I really want to know what you think about a tool for a language you never use.

How much did you PowerPointology cert cost? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030859)

Kid, it's great that your elementary school work has made you feel confident with MS Office and FrontPage, but stop bothering the grownups now, okay? They have important things to do and discuss, such as *nix, *bsd, PHP, etc. So run along and play with your Microsoft tinkertoys, and try to keep the noise down. That's a good boy.

Re:So In Other Words (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030671)

What's the point?

The point is to make more money for Microsoft by allowing them to expand into another market. Watch: in a year or two, there'll be DreamWeaver/Expression wars all over the place, much like Linux/Windows wars, today. A year or two after that, DreamWeaver will be gone.

I've said it before and I'll sat it again. I can't understand why people still develop software for Windows. People who do will have one of two futures: either Microsoft will buy them, or Microsoft will come out with a competing product and put them out of business. It's just crazy.

Re:So In Other Words (1)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030689)

Or, in still other words, you bow (kneel & bob) to MS or Adobe.
Either way, you are going to lock yourself into proprietary, hard to make compliant, hard to make accessible, formats.

Sweet!
I'm all over that!

Yes, I know it can be done, but how many drag-and-drop designers are going to git a shit about learning how to do it well.

I liken it to getting laid for the first time: you really didn't know what you were doing, or how to do it well, but damn, it felt good.

ASP.NET ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030493)

I don't get it... The summary is taken verbatim from the article, and the article leaves much to be desired.

What does the successor of Frontpage have to do with ASP.NET? I don't see a single thing in the screenshots that point to the connection.

Re:ASP.NET ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030615)

It seems to be primarily there to givbe the good people of Slashdot a reason the slag it off without thinking about it too much.

Other browsers? (4, Interesting)

debilo (612116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030508)

"Walking the web standards walk" sounds nice at first, but Microsoft has a history of creating rather varying definitions of standard compliance that often didn't relate to web designers' own experiences. I skimmed the article, but didn't see a comparison of how well the code is supported in non-IE browsers.

Re:Other browsers? (2, Insightful)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030743)

The code will be as good as the support in their browser. See how this stacks up in a Browser comparison [webdevout.net]

Standards accepted, standard development tools, no (3, Interesting)

notnAP (846325) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030510)

The Expression Web Designer application walks the Web standards walk. One caution: Web Designer currently only supports ASP.NET.

The same attitude that leads MS to believe they can ignore standards (essentially, writing their own) is what leads them to believe they can ignore other "standard" practices, like using a variety of tools, platforms, and development schemes.

In other news, Microsoft has decided to start releasing to the world "air," which will be an alternative to whatever it is you are presently inhaling. MSAir will not contain any oxygen, so it may not be of much use to some users.

Designers won't touch Expression (2, Interesting)

DarkManaX (527621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030527)

From my experience most designers who do web stuff wouldn't get near Expression; alot of that having to do with Macs being prominent in the design field. Not to mention MS's blatent disregard for standards, as mentioned many times here already.

Re:Designers won't touch Expression (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030576)

.NET 2.0 and 3.0 can fully support standards, actually. I believe the final releases of 3.0 will enable standards by default rather than require the programmer to enable them.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons why ASP.NET sucks. Namely the horrid support for non-JS-enabled browsers, cookie requirement even for the simplest of forms, etc...

Standards Compliant Editor Useless Without IE Fix (1)

Soong (7225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030538)

If M$ really wants to walk the standards walk, fix Internet Exploder already. I hate it when I design my website to work fine with Firefox and Safari and some IE user comes along and it doesn't work.

Re:Standards Compliant Editor Useless Without IE F (2, Insightful)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030577)

I'm all for standards, but are you saying you don't check to see if your site works with the #1 web browser?

Re:Standards Compliant Editor Useless Without IE F (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030628)

I wish more people wouldn't. What better way to force MS to start complying with standards?

Then we can start seeing sites that say to IE users that their browser is not supported (not that I am bitter.)

Re:Standards Compliant Editor Useless Without IE F (3, Insightful)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030652)

And users would just say "Fuck you" to said site and move on to the next one. I know I do when a site tells me to bugger off because I'm using Opera.

Okay but what if (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030853)

"And users would just say "Fuck you" to said site and move on to the next one."

Okay but what if the next one says the same thing or something similar. Or not the next site, but another one, later that day. Or the following day. Then another one. At some point the users gonna say "why are all these people pist at IE?"

The point of boycott-type pressure is not to create an immediate and complete crumbling of the other side's support. It's to build up a groundswell until the other side can no longer ignore the voice of a few (hundred? thousand? million?) disgruntled weirdos.

Re:Standards Compliant Editor Useless Without IE F (1)

Soong (7225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031048)

Yes. I don't have IE or any M$ software. M$ doesn't exist in my world.

With some searching I did finally find a windows box lying around at work and test a couple pages. And now my website serves a crippled minimal feature version unless your user-agent string says "Firefox" or "Safari", and it adds a "Get Firefox" button.

Re:Standards Compliant Editor Useless Without IE F (1)

JacksBrokenCode (921041) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031091)

Are you a professional designer? Whether or not you support Microsoft's decisions, it seems silly not to offer better than "crippled minimal feature version" support for the browser with the most market-share. I can't imagine telling one of my clients (or my boss if I worked for a different company) "Yeah, your/our site doesn't look good in the most popular browser, but it's because their philosophy is flawed."

And, if it's about standards-supporting browsers, why don't you test for Opera?

Re:Standards Compliant Editor Useless Without IE F (1)

InsertCleverUsername (950130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030878)

I'm a well-paid M$ fanboy (add me to your Foes list now!), but I can't agree enough. IE has been an unforgivable mess from it's inception. Nothing would make my day like an end to finding workarounds for Microsoft's unique browser "standards."

Huh? (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030551)

"The Expression Web Designer application walks the Web standards walk. One caution: Web Designer currently only supports ASP.NET."

Aren't these two statements sort of, you know, contradictory?

Look, I know it's de rigeur for us to trash Microsoft and talk about "MS Fanboys" and all that - but even just reading this summary, it's obvious that 1) MS really HASN'T drank the Koolaid; and 2) This really isn't a professional tool by anyone's standards except some fanboys who don't know any better. It's just a repackaging of FrontPage - they're prettied it up and maybe added a few meaningless tweaks.

What's the old saying... you can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end it's still a pig.

It's about what, no how (3, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030630)

Where's the contradiction? ASP is just a server-side scripting language. W3C specifications describe what the HTML and CSS is supposed to look like once it reaches the brower. It would be absurd for them to specify where that markup comes from!

Re:It's about what, no how (0, Offtopic)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030795)

The contradiction lies in the defaults of VS 200#.Net.
When the default in your IDE is to client side scripting, you are no longer in a true ASP environment. In fact, any concessions to accessibility in VS 2003 were only implemented in SP1. They were also disabled by default.
The IDE itself is not usable by programmers with disabilities. MS has chosen to leave making the program accessible to "third parties".

GIGO-Garbage In Garbage Out.

Re:It's about what, no how (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031019)

And if we were talking about visual studio you'd have a point. RTFA is bad enough, but you didn't even read the fucking headline!

Re:It's about what, no how (1)

Lego-Lad (587117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030812)

.NET does a strange thing where you can do mark up, style DIV tags, etc. but it will render things differently than you intended depending on the browser making the call. You have to go into IIS and change this...so, using ASP.NET, though it's server-side, does actually impact standards.

Perhaps this tool will fix this...I've used ASP and PHP professionally for years now and the only time I'll use a .NET solution is when I'm forced to do so. I do not see Expressions as a DreamWeaver killer, anymore than Sparkle is a Flash killer.

Re:It's about what, no how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030916)

.NET does a strange thing where you can do mark up, style DIV tags, etc. but it will render things differently than you intended depending on the browser making the call. You have to go into IIS and change this...so, using ASP.NET, though it's server-side, does actually impact standards
That's if you use all the whiz-bang ASP.Net toolbox goodies. If you continue using standard HTML in VS2005 it renders exactly as you typed it. No disrespect, but if you're modifying IIS to fix your misuse of ASP.NET, you're really going about this the wrong way.

Like Java, C++, a particle accelerator, or any other complex technology, if you don't know the strengths and limitations of the tools you're using, you're going to have to depend on luck to get the results you want. If you're not comfortable with it, avoid it.

Re:It's about what, no how (1)

Lego-Lad (587117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030952)

Truth...we are using the wizbang toolbox things. Well said.

Re:It's about what, no how (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031032)

That's idiotic. Because some of the .NET API doesn't work the way you think it should, no program that uses .NET can be w3c compliant?

Re:Huh? (4, Interesting)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030656)

They're not as contradictory as it first appears really.

Web standards pretty much determine the markup output server-side and how that markup is rendered in the browser. ASP.NET 2.0 is a server-side technology that outputs XHTML compliant code that will work in any browser - no ASP.NET stuff ever gets near the browser.

In that respect, ASP.NET is as web standards compliant as any other server-side technology - PHP, JSP, anything - it's virtually irrelevant to what gets output and arrives at the browser.

However, you're right in that Expression looks and feels half-baked. Visual Studio.NET is just fine for putting together 'professional' ASP.NET stuff, so why you'd want to release a product that overlaps is beyond me, especially when pages adhering to web standards can be put together in notepad if you know what you're doing (which from experience a lot of web designers don't).

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

nhavar (115351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030974)

DING DING DING... give the man a prize for... "a lot of web designers don't." There's a difference between web designers and web developers in a quite a few of the people I've met. Some call themselves web developers and yet rely very heavily on the tools to do all of the work for them. Not in one of those "work smarter not harder" ways, but in the "what's wrong with the font tag" way. They're really designers. Most of the time they might as well be using Photoshop or Illustrator to mockup the site and then hand it off to a web developer to figure out the code. Of course, I've also met my share of dipshits in that camp too. They're too eager to use buzzword-de-jour and end up relying on Sun/Oracle/IBM's tooling and create double the amount of work for themselves.

MS knows that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to fork over good money for a tool that is just adequate so that they can output content, applications, documents, etc., that is just adequate. That's where the real money is. It's not in producing the best product or service it's about appealing to the mass audience of neophites and apathetic designer/developers.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030834)

"The Expression Web Designer application walks the Web standards walk. One caution: Web Designer currently only supports ASP.NET."
Aren't these two statements sort of, you know, contradictory?
Not really. If they're talking about client-side standards --not integration between serverside and clientside code. You can create completely standards compliant code with VS2005 (that's Visual Studio 2005, an M$ product) or Notepad --it's all up to the coder. If you don't know how to use M$ tools, it isn't entirely Bill's fault. Just because a lot of their tools make development tasks easier is no reason to believe that EVERYBODY using them is a moron.

Anyway, I wouldn't lose any sleep over Expression Web Designer. It will (obviously) only be used by M$ shops heavily invested in ASP.Net. The infection (as it's thought of by the faithful in the church of OSS) will be contained.


(please mod -666 "work of the anti-christ")

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

BRSQUIRRL (69271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030896)

Good grief, have any of the commenters here actually USED ASP.NET 2.0? Or are you just basing your statements on some half-true rant you read three years ago in a PHP forum somewhere? ASP.NET 2.0 actually does a pretty good job of rendering standards-compliant XHTML to the client browser. In fact, the only required piece of the ASP.NET toolchain that is made by Microsoft is IIS. I can use any page/code editor to build a site and any (current) browser to view them. Before someone objects...yes, it is possible to build horribly noncompliant pages in ASP.NET (just as it is in PHP), and yes, it is much easier to do some ASP.NET tasks in Visual Studio, but...come on people.

And when they say that "Web Designer currently only supports ASP.NET", they only mean that if you want to do some kind of server-side development using Expression, it is going to be ASP.NET. You are perfectly free to develop XHTML/CSS/JavaScript to your heart's content. But what's that? Microsoft didn't include PHP/JSP/Rails support? Oh, nevermind. It's a toy for "fanboys". Sheesh.

What I would like to know is... (4, Insightful)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030558)

...how clean is the code from Microsoft's product. I've used both FrontPage and Dreamweaver and I can tell you that most of the time Dreamweaver produces some pretty clean HTML etc. Frontpage not so much.

If the code is clean enough I could run it on my Linux Apache server using mono.

Better not hold my breath...

Re:What I would like to know is... (1)

Aerdan (988028) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030999)

Dreamweaver does not emit 'clean' code. It's still more cluttered and not as logically presented as hand-written code.

Peh. (2, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030560)

Who needs Expression? I have a text editor.

Kool-aid? (4, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030579)

Microsoft finally drank the Kool-Aid.
Why is "drink the Kool-Aid" such a popular expression for "leap of faith"? Isn't anybody put off the orgin [infoplease.com] of the phrase?

Re:Kool-aid? (1)

Dever (564514) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030638)

i wish they actually would drink the 'Kool-Aid'

Re:Kool-aid? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030641)

You mean it wasn't Ken Kesey? Bummer, man.

Re:Kool-aid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030643)

Gimme another Guyana Punch, please. Oh yeah!

Re:Kool-aid? (1)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030653)

Why is "drink the Kool-Aid" such a popular expression for "leap of faith"? Isn't anybody put off the orgin of the phrase?

I didn't know the connection betwen "Kool-Aid" and that massacre. For me, it always reminds me of the much older "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test [wikipedia.org] ". Definitely NOT something that would put me off.

Re:Kool-aid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030721)

Yeah, it was initiall about the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test [wikipedia.org] and accepting the culture... then those folks in Jonestown screwed it all up. I wasn't aware of the Jonestown stuff before. It appears "don't drink the Kool-Aid" may be more about not following blindly, while "drunk the kool-aid" is more an act of acceptance.

Re:Kool-aid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030755)

IMO this is a misuse of the phrase, unless the author considers using web standards to be a bad thing. "Drinking the Kool-Aid" is buying into a dubious cult. If it looks like a good idea from the outside, it's not kool aid.

I want to believe (4, Informative)

alienmole (15522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030818)

The Jonestown incident is the whole point: drinking the Kool-Aid is an act of unquestioning blind allegiance, with no critical thought involved. The reason it's such a popular expression is that you see so many people behaving this way, towards all sorts of things not worthy of such behavior, like companies, politicians, cars, you name it. As Mulder might put it, they want to believe... in something, anything.

Re:I want to believe (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031043)

...drinking the Kool-Aid is an act of unquestioning blind allegiance, with no critical thought involved
That's a very logical definition, but I have never heard "drink the Kool-Aid" used that way. It always means "accept a new idea". That's certainly the case here: when the writer said "Microsoft has drunk the Kool-Aid" he certainly didn't mean that Microsoft has sword "unquestioning blind allegiance" to web standards. That would make no sense, since Microsoft has resisted web standards for years!

Re:Kool-aid? (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030940)

Jeez - I didn't know that.

According to "The Truth About Jonestown" by Sheila Yohnk (see external links), on November 18, 1978, a large vat of grape-flavored Flavor Aid was prepared; the brew included potassium cyanide, Valium, Penegram, and chloral hydrate.

I always thought it was the Grateful Dead/LSD thing. Still, if MS drank the fruity potassium cyanide solution a lot of people would be in favor of that too.

Re:Kool-aid? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031057)

I'm beginning to think that most people don't know about the association with Jonestown. Which goes a long way to explaining why the expression is so popular. Still doesn't explain how people who do know about the connection (and there seem to be a lot of them) using mass suicide as a positive metaphor.

Too little, too late (4, Insightful)

v3xt0r (799856) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030598)

It's not a drawback for developers, it's a limitation for Microsoft.

Why would any (sane) web application developer want to pay for and use a windows-only IDE, when you can develop on a free operating system, with free software, and do (virtually) anything you want with the source code??

As a perl/php web application developer, and someone who sometimes helps HR interview/test candidates to see where their technical skills and abilities are... I wouldn't recommend hiring someone who only uses IDE's such as dreamweaver, simply because they generally lack programming and software-design skills.

I might recommend them for a Web 'Designer' position, as they may be great at making graphical interfaces, but Web (GUI) Designers should not be confused with Web Application Developers, and in an assembly-line process they should never be exposed to the server-side source code.

Another drawback of using IDEs such as Dreamweaver in an assembly-line web application development environment, is that there is always a poor soul who has to clean-up all the nasty WYSIWYG-generated HTML code from the IDE. This is can sometimes be a huge set-back for resources and time allocation.

It's simply counter-productive.

Since most Web Designers who use IDEs only view from the 'Design' view, they generally don't realize how much sloppy code is being generated, or how to clean it up. (not all, but the majority of the mass)

Re:Too little, too late (0)

juiceCake (772608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030693)

Another drawback of using IDEs such as Dreamweaver in an assembly-line web application development environment, is that there is always a poor soul who has to clean-up all the nasty WYSIWYG-generated HTML code from the IDE. This is can sometimes be a huge set-back for resources and time allocation.

Anyone who has ever used Dreamweaver, and who uses the Code View knows that the code is clean and you have control over how it is generated. That's the great thing about Dreamweaver, it's great for code-heads and it's great for those who are not.

Since most Web Designers who use IDEs only view from the 'Design' view, they generally don't realize how much sloppy code is being generated, or how to clean it up.

Since when does Dreamweaver develop a lot of sloppy XHTML code that has to be cleaned up?

Re:Too little, too late (3, Interesting)

Lego-Lad (587117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030845)

Dreamweaver doesn't create sloppy code any longer. Adobe.Macromedia has done a great job of improving Dreamweaver, including CSS support. One can create strict or transitional xhtml right in the code view - no more garbage is inserted. A lot of the JS snippets haven't changed, but if you do that, you probably have your own library already developed. DW is a tool for rapid application development. It's faster than hand coding, and produces excellent code when used correctly. This wasn't always the case, but to be fair, DW8 is excellent.

Re:Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030957)

Why would any (sane) web application developer want to pay for and use a windows-only IDE, when you can develop on a free operating system, with free software, and do (virtually) anything you want with the source code??
Allow me to answer (anonymously so I can keep my account):
Because my company pays for it and I can be phenomenally productive with almost no time spent on research (did I mention I'm lazy?). Visual Studio is one of the few things M$ deserves kudos for --at least if productivity is a factor. The IDE practically writes the code for you.

Evolution (1)

jrmiller84 (927224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030600)

If Frontpage was any hint of things to come, I'll pass. When I was in HS (computer tech. academy) that's what we used because they couldn't afford licenses of Dreamweaver. Once I used Dreamweaver I swore I would never go back. I don't understand why they would only allow it to support ASP.Net. Or maybe I can ($$$). I personally can't stand programming in ASP. I've always hated it. When I was asked to design our corporate intranet I immediately jumped to PHP with a MySql backend even when ASP.net and SQL [Express] were openly available to me just to stay away from ASP. Perhaps I'm bias but come on... Developers aren't going to limit theirselves to one language when they can buy another suite that will allow them to use a gamut of languages and database engines together for most likely an equal price. I would rather use Notepad.

Re:Evolution (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031042)

ASP and ASP.NET are not very similar. I wouldn't judge one on the basis of the other.

Check out MICROSOFT's wrongdoing (2, Interesting)

applix7 (998238) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030610)

Microsoft is hard core. http://malfy.org/ [malfy.org]

Opposite meaning of "drinking the Kool-Aid"? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030626)

I thought "drinking the Kool-Aid" meant that you have blind faith in an irrational mindset, like committing mass suicide. For Microsoft to become aware of the real world around them, they would have to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

No php or cf support no expression engine for me (1)

jeffgtr (929361) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030645)

I don't see why I'd even want to try this if your stuck with asp.net As many headaches as IE has caused me and countless others I will avoid this like the plague on principal only let alone that I seldom have a need for asp.net I'll stick with DW and BBedit and when I have to be on my windows machine at work DW and Editpad

Uh, oh... (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030665)

Microsoft seems to be lost in the web design field. Can someone hand them a LAMP [wikipedia.org] and a good text editor so they can find their way?

Long Time Dreamweaver User - Impressed (4, Informative)

Anamanaman (97418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030669)

As a long time dreamweaver user (Since 4.0), I tried Expression web designer last week and really like it. The interface is better laid out than Dreamweaver and it has a really great HTML View (where I spend most of my time). The css support is also top notch.

ASP.NET really has nothing to do with this editor. Its focused on HTML and CSS. If you are an ASP.NET developer, it will let you drop in server controls and thats about. You'd be crazy to use this instead of Visual Studio.NET for real coding. This is purely an HTML editor.

All developers (including PHP/JSP) can use this to build their HTML comps before making the site dynamic. Once it stabalizes it will definately give Dreamweaver a run for its money.

Re:Long Time Dreamweaver User - Impressed (2, Interesting)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030726)

All developers (including PHP/JSP) can use this to build their HTML comps before making the site dynamic.

Yeah, because obviously the syntax hilighting will be fantastic with an MS app that only understands VB/C#... Makes me wonder what sort of bastardised CSS this thing generates to support MS' horrendous line of web browsers. I'm guessing it'll actually generate IE specific CSS, and render badly on anything else, as per MS standard operating practice.

Unless you have "Owned by Microsoft" stamped on your ass, I don't see why anyone would choose this garbage over Dreamweaver (disclaimer: I use DW in code view only, so can't vouch for its design abilities).

Re:Long Time Dreamweaver User - Impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030775)

Yeah, because obviously the syntax hilighting will be fantastic with an MS app that only understands VB/C#...
Read the comment: "ASP.NET really has nothing to do with this editor. Its focused on HTML and CSS."

Expression has NOTHING to do with server-side code. As the parent says, it will only allow you to insert a couple of server control placeholders.

No. Code. Whatsoever.

It's an HTML editor that's a successor of Frontpage.

Makes me wonder what sort of bastardised CSS this thing generates to support MS' horrendous line of web browsers. I'm guessing it'll actually generate IE specific CSS, and render badly on anything else, as per MS standard operating practice.
It does not, and it will not. Why don't you try it?

Unless you have "Owned by Microsoft" stamped on your ass, I don't see why anyone would choose this garbage over Dreamweaver (disclaimer: I use DW in code view only, so can't vouch for its design abilities).
ROTFL. You're using $200 software as a simple text editor, while there are free/libre alternatives? Yeah, right. And Expression, which can also be used in code view, is garbage?

You are teh funnay.

Is it me? (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030677)

Or does the original poster not understand the meaning of 'drink the kool-aid'?

Thanks, but no thanks. (1)

Overfiend1976 (979710) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030714)

I'll just stick to my Macromedia Flash MX 2004. I like being able to do absolutely everything in notepad :P

Semantics (1)

mattpointblank (936343) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030752)

What's with Microsoft naming their products with such generic names? Are they hoping that, like Word, Excel, Powerpoint etc, the product names will become synonyms for their function? Just another brick in the wall of antitrust.

Good CSS support? (1)

wazzzup (172351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030759)

So, if the css support is good with this product, then what rendering engine does the preview use? Certainly not the IE engine if the claim for good css support is to be beleived. If it's not the IE engine, then why aren't they using it for IE?

My guess is the preview is IE-based and therefore a worthless tool if you're designing clean CSS.

Re:Good CSS support? (1)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030851)

There is Not good CSS support in the next iteration of the browser so, how could we expect good support in an IDE? Comments on I.E 7 [msdn.com]

Drink the Koolaid? (2, Informative)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030785)

I'm sorry... How is following a set of standards "drinking the Koolaid"? Using MS tools for everything because management says it's "good policy" instead of using the right tool for the job is drinking the Koolaid (or at least management drank the Koolaid).

Well I don't think so (1)

lightningspirit (995716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030820)

Microsoft Expression is a copy from Macromedia Homesite and not from Dreamweaver... i think they need to work hard to touch dreamweaver.

Re:Well I don't think so (1)

soliptic (665417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030843)

I find that interesting, considering I like Homesite quite a lot (finally persuaded to use it instead of vanilla wordpad) and think Dreamweaver is a bloated piece of crap.

I might have been interested in checking this out if it supported php (by which I mean, syntax highlighting), but from what I gather it doesn't, so nevermind.

video mktg content doesn't work (1)

steverar (999774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030841)

The video mtkg demo doesn't play correctly in Firefox on a Mac. I think I'll pass

Re:video mktg content doesn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16031054)

Surprise, surprise. That combination is a nightmare to get to function correctly. Make it look good in FF/Win and FF/Lnx then go look on FF/Mac and I gaurantee the Mac will render something wierd.

Obviously (1)

ztuni (878834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030881)

"One caution: Web Designer currently only supports ASP.NET. Microsoft built the ASP.NET platform; it isn't a surprise that Expression Web Designer was designed to support that platform. This is obviously a drawback for those designers who work with PHP, JSP, and other non-ASP.NET platforms, making it difficult for Microsoft to expand its reach beyond the ASP.NET users.'"

You know what? I think this is a drawback for those designers who work with non-ASP.net platforms.

Gotta say it more than twice

ASP.NET? (2, Interesting)

gettingbraver (987276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030955)

Anyone see this? [oreillynet.com]

Maybe you sat down to help grandma sign up for the new Medicare Prescription Drug plan this year? If you and gramps ended up staring at a HTTP 500 response code, you weren't alone. The Medicare website, a mishmash of Microsoft ASP and ASP.NET pages, has been overwhelmed by activity, and, from most reports, is suffering from frequent outages.

I don't know how many saw the site [medicare.gov] last year (helping a relative enroll in Medicare D, maybe), but it damn near impossible! I can't even imagine someone who is not internet-literate following all everything, the way that it was originally designed (and subsequently changed). But, maybe that was the whole idea.

Re:ASP.NET? (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031103)

Wow!! Nice try for a tier change of topic.

no way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030986)

no way, they're trying to lock me in their tools and technology (asp.net? gosh, anybody programming in it?). ms please kiss my ass

Wrong app. (2, Informative)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031036)

To make ASP.NET programming you use Visual Studio Express or better. This app is nothing more than the evolution of Front Page. Yes, you can use it to insert ASP.NET controls but nothing more. You can use it to insert PHP server tags if you want. However, the purpose of this app is to make web pages, not web applications.

Using Dreamweaver's built in functionality to insert PHP snippets is not only foolish but discouraged. Using the Expression web designer to make ASP.NET apps is futile at best.

Re:Wrong app. (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16031128)

My guess is that the ASP.NET features of this thing are similar to the Dreamweaver's snippets (I didn't use Dreamweaver since the the original MX, so bear with me if that changed). Its to prototype stuff, or to use in very simple scenarios. A possible use of this tool is for a designer, who makes the page, then give it to an ASP.NET programmer to plug in with the other tiers of the application (business logic, DAL, and so on). One use of being able to add the server controls, would be for the designer to use the asp.net server controls instead of generic textboxes, and so on, so that the programmer won't have to replace them, for example. In other words, its simply there as a "just in case you happen to need it, but its unlikely" deal, which seems to fall straight in line with the purpose of this application in a web app development cycle.

To confirm what you seem to imply, indeed, seeing this tool as an ASP.NET tool is silly, and I have issues understanding why so many comments on this article seems to see this tool that way. Really, anyone who thinks any ASP.NET programmer will be using this to plug the backend code in their application, have absolutely no clue how an ASP.NET workflow goes.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>