Matt, Are you talking about doing an Eclipse plug in for CFML development?
- Calvin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:43 PM Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
