AMEN!!!! ty Adam
> Right on Ben! > > I seriously just don't get this thread at all. Never once in my life > have I ever noticed a difference in coding speed based on the IDE I was > using. I can just see the expression on my boss's face if I'd say "sorry > I missed the deadline, but my IDE slowed me down" or "this would have > been done sooner had I had a built in debugger". > > D-Dub is a fine tool. If it's too slow for you, I suggest you buy a new > computer. I'm working on a 2-year old box and it runs like a champ. > > Quite frankly this argument has been running for so long that it's lost > all meaning to me. These issues seem like a security blanket issue, with > developers who don't want to give up on something they had for so many > years. Personally I got bored with CFStudio/Homesite (after several > years). I tried DWMX exclusively for one month and never looked back. > (Even though my initial intentions were to try it for 1-month so I could > load up on bad things to say MM about) > > Macromedia is constantly making my life easier with updates to CF and > Flash and they have supported our community like no other (even more > than Allaire imho). Is it really fair to blast them over the features of > one of their IDEs vs another? I mean they _do_ have two separate IDEs. > The _only_ reason Homesite is still around is because of the critics. > > Some of these issues are def legit, but the longer this thread goes on, > the more it is starting to sound like whining. I mean a lot of you are > just complaining about CFMX 6.1! Seriously if you guys don't like MM > that much, maybe you should go .NET and see how much MS listens to your > suggestions. > > I suggest everyone at least try mx2k4 for a month. I assure you you'll > still be able to code, and at the very least you'll have tried > something, dare I say..... new. > > Adam Wayne Lehman > Web Systems Developer > Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health > Distance Education Division > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:27 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > <CFSETTING MMHAT="off"> > > I've been watching this thread with interest, and have also been > forwarding the juicy bits to all sorts of folks within Macromedia. I've > stayed out of the discussion thus far, but ... > > I use Dreamweaver. I also use HomeSite. I also use CodeWrite (which I > migrated to after Sage which I migrated to after Brief). I'd love one > editor that did it all, it does not exist yet, so I use multiple. It > seems that many of you do the same. > > And no, I do not have to use Dreamweaver, I don't even have to like > Dreamweaver, no one (not even my employer) gets to tell me what editor I > should use or like. (Anyone who thinks otherwise does not know me). I > have been a semi-advocate of Dreamweaver since DWMX (I had been a vocal > critic of Dreamweaver prior to that), I have been on the backs of the > Dreamweaver team to improve CF support for a long time and continue to > do so, I publicly acknowledge what I like about Dreamweaver, and have no > qualms about stating what it is that I don't like. I have been very > honest in discussing Dreamweaver, and have never positioned it as a CF > Studio replacement, and always positioned it as "another tool in the > tool box" while stating that the Dreamweaver team had expressed a > commitment to continue to improve ColdFusion integration. > > It's that last point that seems to be the crux of this all. And for > those of you who have complained that Dreamweaver MX 2004 does not do > enough for ColdFusion developers, well, I agree. It has improved, and > some of the biggest complaints from ColdFusion users (including the > speed and needing to always define sites) have been addressed. I would > really have liked to have seen more, and as much as I don't like the > fact that the Dreamweaver team dedicated resources to improving support > for ASP.NET and PHP I also understand the economics. This is a business, > Macromedia needs to continue to sell lots of Dreamweaver. The product > has 2,000,000+ users (or something like that) most of whom do not use > ColdFusion, the static page market is saturated and they need to go > after where the big bucks are, targeting PHP and ASP.NET users make > sense. (Whether or not those users will buy the story remains to be > seen, but the Dreamweaver team had to make that effort). It is less "we > don't care about CF" and more "we care lots about those massive user > bases". Context. > > I have a laundry list of stuff I want in Dreamweaver (or HomeSite, or > any editor). Many of the items are my own wants, others are user > suggestions, all are shared by the wider community. I want data > awareness in the IDE, I want right click introspection everywhere and > anywhere, I want IntelliJ type intelligence so that when I change a CFC > method I can keep all invocations in synch, I want speed, I want decent > DB integration tools, I want a real debugger, I could go on and on and > on ... I'll keep pushing and nagging. > > So is the new Dreamweaver the ColdFusion aware IDE I wanted? Nope. Is it > a useful tool? Yes. It is an improvement over Dreamweaver MX, even for > us CFers? Yes. Is it good enough to be the exclusive editor for > ColdFusion developers? I'd say that depends on the developer, for > experienced developers I'd say no. Is it compelling enough for Studio > and HomeSite users to abandon those tools entirely for it? No. Does it > have any value at all for ColdFusion developers? Absolutely. > > I am at least thankful that HomeSite has been given a new lease on life. > HomeSite 5.5 is not a major upgrade, but it does add some important > enhancements some of which I may want to use. Some of you complained > about having to buy Dreamweaver to get HomeSite+, and that one irked me > a bit. We seem to have forgotten that CF Studio used to sell for, what > was it? $300? $400? I forget. Paying $199 for Dreamweaver + HomeSite+ is > less than you paid for CF Studio itself back then. Even if you never > ever look at Dreamweaver you are ahead of the game. I think that those > comments are more an emotional reaction to having to buy a box with the > dreaded D on it, than anything else. Well, get over it. > > For those of you who question the commitment to CF, um, hello? Did you > miss 6.1? I for one think that CFMX 6.1 is a very significant upgrade, > you may feel otherwise and are entitled to do so. Regardless, investing > as we did in CF and then releasing it as a free upgrade to me spells > Commitment (with a capital C). Yes, I know there are other departments > and product teams within Macromedia who like to play Switzerland and not > marry themselves to any product for fear of alienating users of other > technologies, but that is marketing and should be recognized as such. I > beat up on them for it, you should feel free to do the same. If you hear > nothing from the CF team for a while, get worried, until then realize > that Macromedia is a big company (i.e., not Allaire) selling lots of > products many of which generate far greater revenue than does > ColdFusion. > > Ok, I am way off on a tangent now, so, back to where I started ... No > one is forcing you to use Dreamweaver. I personally will use this new > version when it works for me, I have never used any of its design > features or CF generation features, and I doubt I'll start doing so now. > I'll use HomeSite 5.5 too. And I'll keep nagging the Dreamweaver team to > make their product a better option for ColdFusion developers, and you > should do so too. Although at some level I think that some ColdFusion > users will always reject it anyway, just because. > > </CFSETTING> > > --- Ben > > ====================================================== > Ben Forta - Macromedia Inc. > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: (248)213-0203 > Fax: (248)213-0299 > Macromedia: http://www.macromedia.com/ > Personal: http://www.forta.com/ > Blog: http://www.forta.com/blog/ > > Have questions about ColdFusion? You need the ColdFusion FAQ > (now in twelve languages) at http://www.cffaq.com/ - browse, > learn, link, comment, and contribute. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:05 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
