I agree as well. I have been working on an Eclipse plug-in in my spare time that does all of what you mention. Right now, all I have is syntax highlighting and J2EE deployment management. Hoping to add something like intellisense and syntax debugging in the future, but as always, side projects are slow going.
-Matt On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 02:23 PM, Tony Weeg wrote: > I couldn�t have said it better myself. > > CFS with some VBStudio like tools, intellisense, breakpoints, > etc....would just plain rock!!!! > > tony weeg > sr. web applications architect > navtrak, inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.navtrak.net > office 410.548.2337 > fax 410.860.2337 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:21 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > I would have to disagree. > > For example, a language centric tool could leverage strong server debug > capabilities. > > Wouldn't you like to be able to open a page within the IDE, go through > your application, have debug output in another panel of your IDE for > that page and it's include files, be able to set break points, and > trace > variable values to reduce <cfabort> debugging needs, and come across an > error, click on the error within your IDE, have it open the offending > .cfm page in your IDE, and highlight the error. > > Wouldn't that be powerful? And doesn't that sound familiar (except that > it works so clunkily and problematically in CFS...)? > > Divorcing the language from the tool does the developer a disservice, > you can write CFML in notepad, but why should you? CFS is far superior > with it's help/reference system alone (language specific), not to > mention the color coding (language specific), and the toolbar (language > specific), and so forth. > > What we need is a ColdFusion centric IDE, that also strongly supports > the rest of the stuff we'll be reasonably expected to work within (xml, > html, css, javascript). > > If it can be used for other things, great. But let's take the tools to > another level, I can't understand why after 4 years, CFS and DWMX is > still the best we can have to support CFML development specifically. > > - Calvin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:01 PM > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > >> I see it from exactly the opposite point of view. >> >> I am forever thankful Allaire (and Macromedia) have divorced the >> language > from the development environment. >> >> I'm glad I can use whatever editor I like to manipluate the source. >> I've > used textpad, CF Studio, Dreamweaver, Editplus, Ultradev, grep. >> >> I like (and use) CF Studio. It is my current favorite. But as with any > editor, it will take the back seat at some point to my new favorite > (whatever it is going to be). >> >> I also like that Studio isn't CF centric. I use it to edit perl, php, > vbscript, bat files, cshell scripts, jsp, hts. >> >> It still isn't as good as Brief or the Turbo Pascal 5.0 editor (for >> what > they did at the time). But it is the best I have at the moment. And I > would keep it for the extended search and replace even if nothing else > worked. >> >> Just my opinion >> Jerry Johnson >> >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/27/03 01:51PM >>> >> 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
