[iBean]

I was talking about Dreamweaver with a friend of mine who is now taking a web design course. He is being taught to build a page from scrath using *only* design mode, for html and css.

I hand-code all my html - my friend tought it was weird that someone still *needed* to use code view when you have design view. Still, I tried to convince him of the beneficts - well, for me, at least - of using code view.

Anyways, at some point we were wondering if most web designers use code view or design view, hence the poll

[Chuckit]

Jesus friggin' Christ, fire that teacher.

[Oversoul]

It's been a while since I designed a webpage, but when I did and when I used Dreamweaver I used both views. I might hand code and want to see the effect on design view immediately, or vice versa.

[andi*pandi]

there is no option for using both views, or split screen.

dreamweaver/golive is faster at creating some things, but you can't always trust the code it spits out.

[Oversoul]

I seem to remember there was that option...

Just loaded up an old version of Dreamweaver MX and I do see a split view option.

[ink]

Where's this option:

o No matter how much you love Dreamwever, and the goodness that is Macromedia, you should never, under any circumstances, ever, ever, EVER consider using ColdFusion as an application platform.

Oh, and I use the split-screen mode with Dreamweaver -- unless I'm writing Coldfusion code, in which case I use the Vodka-Whiskey split screen interface.

[Chuckit]

I use split-screen mode, but I mainly use the code editor. No class should teach Web design only through WYSIWYG. That's like a cooking class that consists only of microwaving Lean Cuisine.

[imitchellg5]

I use both, but mostly design. Code isn't pretty enough.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

there is no option for using both views, or split screen.

dreamweaver/golive is faster at creating some things, but you can't always trust the code it spits out.

WTF?



And yes, use code view - always. It's a superior XHTML/PHP editor to most on the market. Just make sure you ignore the "design view" as much as you can.

If you want real time preview, do as me: Code in DW8 and preview with CSSEdit 2.

[kupan787]

I use code view when I am dealing with PHP stuff. If I am just touching up some HTML page, i'll stick it in design view. But that seems to be happening less and less.

[andi*pandi]

I meant there was no option IN THE POLL.

[kick52]

split screen is good.

[iBean]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Jesus friggin' Christ, fire that teacher.

My thought exactly.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

WTF?
If you want real time preview, do as me: Code in DW8 and preview with CSSEdit 2.

One of that reasons that make hate design view is the preview - I don't find it accurate most of the times. Any thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I meant there was no option IN THE POLL.

Erm, my bad

Anyways, using code view doesn't mean you hand-code every line of it. Most of the time I use the menus in Dreamweaver to, say, insert form elements.
I just feel I work faster in code view, using something else for previews.

For the ones using split view: do you actually edit anything in the design half or just use it a real-time preview?

[Doofy]

Vote for the real time preview in SubEthaEdit from here.

[besson3c]

I still don't understand why people would pay big bucks for Dreamweaver if they just plan on using it as a text editor?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I still don't understand why people would pay big bucks for Dreamweaver if they just plan on using it as a text editor?

Site management facilities, I presume. Like being able to move a page to a sub-folder and have the app automatically keep all the internal links correct. That's the only reason I bought GoLive.

[indigoimac]

I use split screen if I have to use dreamweaver, otherwise I just code stuff in TextMate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Site management facilities, I presume. Like being able to move a page to a sub-folder and have the app automatically keep all the internal links correct. That's the only reason I bought GoLive.

Who creates sites of static pages anymore? How useful is this for dynamic content stored in a database back-end?

That seems to be the direction the web is moving in, leaving static .html pages in the dust.

[Peter]

"Textmate."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Peter 

"Textmate."

Great app, I use it too, even though it cost me $50.

[Peter]

I'd pay $150 for it

[indigoimac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who creates sites of static pages anymore? How useful is this for dynamic content stored in a database back-end?

That seems to be the direction the web is moving in, leaving static .html pages in the dust.

but some of us have to manage sites for clients who refuse to move on to something else.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by indigoimac 

but some of us have to manage sites for clients who refuse to move on to something else.

Which is why I role my eyes when people go on about Dreamweaver being a pro app. It isn't. A growing number of sites are comprised primarily of dynamic content.

If Dreamweaver is a good PHP/Perl/Python/Ruby editor, fine, but it isn't going to update your links for you, and I don't get the sense that it has nearly as many handy features like something like TextMate or BBEdit does for pure programming projects.

So, if you are really a pro putting together database driven sites, why would you use Dreamweaver?

[- - e r i k - -]

Because we already own it.

[Dark Helmet]

I only go into code view when something isn't working the way it should. Dreamweaver is a buggy cranky bitch, I hope adobe can clean it up.

[Adam Betts]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

I only go into code view when something isn't working the way it should. Dreamweaver is a buggy cranky bitch, I hope adobe can clean it up.

They have a long way to go. Latest Dreamweaver failed at CSS 1 which is rather embarrassing.