Question - how is CFS 100% ColdFusion? It does RDS and debugging, but everything else is not specific to CF, is it? (And doesn't DW support RDS, or at least remote files.) It seems like the only thing you would lose is debugging... although wait - didn't DWMX support CFMX debugging? I think it did. So I'm not sure I agree with your argument.
Now, that being said, I _really_ prefer CFS, but it's more a question of style then a question of functionality. In fact, DWMX has some functions I wish CFS had... not enough to make me switch, but you could almost say DWMX is more CF-centric. ======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: dwayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 11:51 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > You make some valid points. In fact your points support my > arguments. At the end of the day, we are still left with out > a "ColdFusion Centered" IDE. We still have to make do with > what's available. No doubt Dreamweaver leverages ColdFusion > MX better than every thing else on the market but its still a > 20% ColdFusion / 80% every thing else tool. We should have > to do all this jumping around. Some of use using jedit, > others you dreamweaver, some in HomeSite, and proably most > still in Studio. > > As far as the survey. I would like to see the survey > results. I want to know how many serious CF developers have > completely adopted. I want to see bar charts and pie graphs > and stuff. Are they giving us what we asked for? > > Heck, they can just take the "application" panel in > Dreamweaver, drop it into Studio then Update the Studio > interface to be consistant with other products in the family > and tah dah.. there you have it. > > My point is we need a ColdFusion Centered IDE; one that MACR > should be proud of. > > > > > > >On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 03:03 US/Pacific, dwayne wrote: > >> About 9 - 11 months ago I spent about 10 minutes of my time > >> responding > >> to a macromedia's ColdFusion survey and I have yet to see > the results. > > > >I would think that Red Sky (CFMX 6.1) was the result, for the most > >part... > > > > > >> Would you all agree, that us ColdFusion developers deserve > some love > >> too!! > > > >Considering Allaire (and ColdFusion) might have withered > away without > >Macromedia's investment in the technology, I'd say that > CFers got quite > >a bit of love... > > > >> Sure ColdFusion MX sports a bunch of new features that are > fantastic > >> and the as for old advanced features - they're tighter > than ever. I'm > >> loving cffunction, I'm all over cfc's, and ColdFusion's ability to > >> integrate with FLASH is the best thing since the last "best thing". > > > >Excellent! Glad you're happy with that at least (especially > since quite > >a few CFers beat on Macromedia over the 'promotion' of Flash > to CFers > >and the whole OO issues around CFCs). > > > >> However, despite all of these wonderful improvements in the server > >> application, I'm still not convinced that they have committed to > >> providing us with a solid "Development Environment" that > supports the > >> work habits of the sophisticated ColdFusion Developer. > > > >I think part of the problem here is that your chosen IDE > becomes your > >second-nature way of working and it's really hard to change. Several > >high-profile CFers have made the jump to Dreamweaver and are > very happy > >- and some aren't. Dreamweaver is certainly a very different tool to > >HomeSite / CF Studio. However, CF Studio used to cost $499 > and now you > >can get it (as HomeSite+) for just $399 by buying Dreamweaver. And > >there's a 5.5 version in the works so it's not like Macromedia's > >abandoned anyone here: > > > > http://www.macromedia.com/software/homesite/ > > > >Me personally, I tried CF Studio back in 2001 and just couldn't get > >along with it at all. I figured that since Macromedia bought Allaire > >and we'd be using ColdFusion, I ought to use the dedicated IDE. I > >really tried. But I kept going back to Dreamweaver for so > many things. > >And it wasn't really anything specific that I could put my finger on > >and say "You know, if CFS just did 'X' (or didn't do 'Y' > every time I > >try 'Z') then I'd be happy..." No, it was just a general usability > >issue for me - CF Studio just didn't suit me. > > > >So I switched back to Dreamweaver (well, UltraDev 4, actually). Then > >Dreamweaver MX came out and swallowed (the higher-priced) > UltraDev and > >I was still a happy camper! The CFC and Web Service browsers > are very > >useful (I showed how to use the latter to quickly build CF > applications > >that consume Web Services in a BACFUG presentation a while back). > > > >Then I switched to a Mac. Dreamweaver MX (6.0) was not as > good on the > >Mac as on Windows so I struggled for a while and switched to > jEdit. It > >wasn't ideal for me... I found it clunky and ugly and the CF support > >wasn't great but it was faster and more stable than DWMX 6.0 on the > >Mac. Then the 6.1 updater came out and totally solidified the Mac > >version: it was much faster and rock solid. So I switched, > gratefully, > >back to DWMX as my primary CF IDE. > > > >I can't talk about Dreamweaver MX 2004 much (for obvious > reasons!) but > >I'm using a recent (internal) build and I'm very happy with it. > >Site-less editing has probably been the biggest help in my > workflow as > >well as the new Start Page with its list of recently edited > files and > >various common operations. > > > >> Dreamweaver still seems to be an overkill designers solutions. > > > >Hmm, I think depends on your perspective. I'm certainly not > a designer > >- I'm a hardcore developer - but Dreamweaver fits my workflow just > >fine. I don't use all of its features but I use enough to make it > >worthwhile (e.g., I live and die in "sites" even tho' I find the new > >site-less editing mode very useful). > > > >> and as for Contribute, it must have been the boses, daughter's > >> boyfriend cousin's idea. > > > >I'm a huge advocate of Contribute for quick updates to static sites > >(and there's a lot of those). I use Contribute all the time > to maintain > >project intranet sites as well as parts of my personal > website. My wife > >uses Contribute to manage her website (which I set up in > Dreamweaver) - > >my wife is fairly typical of the sort of users Contribute is > aimed at. > >You might also be interested to know that sections of macromedia.com > >are managed using Contribute - end-user content contribution > for HTML > >sites is its forte. > > > >Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > > >"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > >-- Margaret Atwood > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
