tom muck wrote:
> It sure IS a developer's environment. Even more so than CF Studio, although
> it's still a little rough around the edges.
Rough in that it still marks many of my HTML tags are invalid or errors
because they are used in conjunction with CFM tags.
And as has been mentioned on the list it can at times render pages unusable
pages because of this, and related, issues.
> I have to
> say that after coding CF by hand using Studio, UltraDev probably doubles the
> output I can normally achieve.
YMMV
I'm sure that many people may agree with your assessment. I find that CF
Studio provides me with all the tools I need in a convenient package without
having to fuss with a visual editor and worry about whether the app has
"fixed" my code.
> This is better than just browsing the
> file and then going back and tweaking the code
Again...YMMV
I find I spend more time fussing with DW/UD than I really feel necessary.
And I don't find it all that useful for existing sites. Or site with
extensive use of tags or module calls.
> www.basic-ultradev.com
Which has a some interesting info about your book on UltraDev.
Maybe you should be clear about your biases. I don't mean any offence but
you are a bit more tied to UltraDev (you do have a book out on the subject)
than I think you make clear in your post.
--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
John Kenneth Galbraith
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.pixelgeek.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
