Here here! I agree completely. CF Studio is (Was <snif>) a fabulous product. 5.0 addressed most of the nerve-wracking issues we had with stability in 4.x versions and is as near perfect as possible. It's sad that Macromedia doesn't recognize this and is cannibalizing this product in favor of a "stupid-proof" alternative. I realize HomeSite will be continued - but for how long? How long before they roll it into DW or just drop it altogether?
Macromedia is traditionally a visual company - perhaps they don't quite yet fathom the needs of the people they're trying to convert to DWMX. There is a large faction of folks out there using HomeSite and Studio to write THEIR OWN code that don't want to rely on canned functionality and wizards. It seems that a better fusion of products would have been HomeSite and CF Studio. I too know lots of folks (including myself) that use CF Studio to write Java, JSP, ASP, PHP, CGI, etc. and love it. Studio is so extensible that if Macromedia focused efforts on its continuted development (including PHP, enhanced JSP and ASP support and tools) that they would gain more customers from the code-side than by trying to woo them into using DWMX as the "environment of choice". If Macromedia is serious about Server-Side products then it seems they would see the value of such a robust, code-based tool as Studio. If they insist on dropping functionality they should at least continue to release patches and tag-updates for Studio5. Otherwise they should GPL the code and let someone else continue its life-cycle. Studio is way too valuable a tool to drop entirely. That's just my $0.02 though. Joshua Miller Web Development :: Programming Eagle Web Development LLC www.eaglewd.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] (304) 622-5676 (Clarksburg Office) (304) 456-4942 (Home Office) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:40 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia Folks: What are you thinking? Since I work in CF Studio 4 to 6 hours a day - here's my rant: I certainly like the idea of relating files to other files (hence sites). However, I don't want MM (or any IDE) to "force" or dictate to me any type of file control. I want absolute granular control over how I manage my files. If I WANT to synch files and let DW do all the dirty work, I should be able to. If I WANT to have intimate knowledge of the who what where and how of all my files - I should be able to do that too. In short I want BOTH features. I don't like becoming dependent on a feature - then have it taken away. For that reason I will stick with CF 5 as long as MM chooses to support it (unless they further enhance DWMX to be nicer to coders). As far as I'm concerned CF Studio 5 as close to a perfect Hand-coding IDE as you could want and it should not be diminished. In fact, CF Studio is very well regarded as an editor - so much so that I know folks doing Java, ASP and even Perl who use it as their primary editing tool. If you want to do us CFers out here a favor, rather than wrapping CF studio into dreamweaver, why don't you wrap dreamweaver into CF studio (ha). I sometimes think that the folks who build tools like DW spend a great deal of time to hide what's going on behind the scenes. I take this as an indication that they don't really understand how coders work. On a brand new project we could go days without seeing anything other than debug information <ha>. It would drive a typical "designer" crazy - but there you have it. I want and need to be very involved in each detail ... and for a very good reason. The more detailed my knowledge of a particular application, the faster I can accomplish the "debug and revision" portion of each project phase. As far as "Look and feel", it's usually the smaller part of our projects - yet MM has put most of their work and marketing into those elements for upcoming IDE's. As far as the source control argument, there are tools already available (source safe and cvs to name 2 popular ones) that cover this ground nicely as a core function. Ok... that's my rant. Back to work <g>. -mk -----Original Message----- From: John Dowdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:55 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Macromedia Folks: What are you thinking? At 8:56 AM 5/6/2, Joshua Miller wrote: > Why should you HAVE to setup a site for everything you want to edit on > a remote server? Am I understanding correctly that you'd like future versions of Dreamweaver to download, edit, and upload individual files without locally relating these files to other files? If so, then could you drop a note to the developers about why you'd find this advantageous, and why you it disadvantageous to create a local site, please? http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/ At 11:04 AM 5/6/2, Mark W. Breneman wrote: > To define each site would take me and each of my staff at least and > 1/2 - 1 hour for each person to define the 79 of them. Hmm, it should take just a moment. But you could use the Import/Export Site Command to help with a workgroup too, if you'd like... it's up on the Exchange. jd John Dowdell, Macromedia Developer Support, San Francisco (Best to reply on-list, to avoid my mighty spam filters!) Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ Column: http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/jd_forum/ Technical daily diary: http://jdmx.blogspot.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
