Why do coders hate dreamweaver

I used Dw to generate valid, standards compliant html, which could be maintained by any application The last time I looked at Dw code, it was a mess of tables and meaningless classes. Sure, it's standards compliment and browsers will read it just fine, but other humans will have a tough time. Again, I haven't used Dw recently, but 4 years ago, that was definitely the case.

I think that Edge was supposed to replace Dw, but I don't now anyone who has ever used it, and knowing Adobe, it probably isn't updated very often. I honestly haven't tried it in a long while. But back in the day it was so terrible, people never went back to try it again. It became synonymous with wysiwyg websites with bloated code and thrown together designs.

As a code editor, Dreamweaver is perfectly capable. The problem is that Atom, Brackets and Sublime are all equally great editors that are a fraction of the size and cost of Dreamweaver.

If you're using it for the visual editor though Haven't used it since it was branded Dreamweaver MX. Back then, it was bloated and slow. It generated a lot of useless and convoluted code via its visual interface.

It's probably improved since then, but generally, editors have moved away from the "tell us what you want and we'll generate the code for you" mindset. I'd say in some cases, Dreamweaver will be an efficient solution in oppose to typing up code which a lot of people do. But we're not machine. I take pride in my codes and there's a satisfaction knowing that everything I contributed all originated from me.

Sure it'll cost me another 3 hours or more, but looking back those 3 hours are worth the effort. And then there's the scalability, productivity, collaboration, etc reasons. But I guess that's why I mostly reside to text editors. I used Dreamweaver the first month I did websites, and that's 8 years ago now.

Another reason why I love ST is it's blazing fast speeds and works great with all languages that I work with. Reading this post, I sense it was created for self-promotion yes, we get it, you love to code rather than addressing any real issues.

No offence, but this makes me question your problem solving skills on the basic level and your ability to foresee how such unjustified title can be damaging for a small startup that works hard on delivering great product.

And what do you propose to make Webflow better? I am with you, man. I tried these programs one after another, there are a dozen of them now, seems like one pops up everyday. I, like you, just prefer to design with code.

By not touching code, one is just avoiding the problem. And the only way to know how to write it is to do it daily. Even if you create a design with really crappy code, that is a major step towards taking yourself to the next level. Designing in the browser forces one to solve problems, whether it's technical or visual.

And solving problems is what design is all about. I do think tools like Webflow have a place in the designer's work flow, such as prototyping. The tools allow you to quickly rip up a ton of interactive prototypes for testing or brainstorming before final design, but should never be used for production. These programs are never going to give you the quality that you would get from coding. Coding helps you understand how elements work together and that essentially goes through to your designs.

I get many mockups from clients in the company I work for, asking for things of which aren't possible, not even with our CMS, that wouldn't generally work, and these are real life Designers at work here. The way I see it: Webflow allows for extremely rapid prototyping and playing. A lot of the designs are beautiful and come with a bunch of fancy animations tossed in that seem to work very well. But let's be honest, it's basically the better version of Wix. It doesn't require any deeper understanding of how and why something works.

This will always be the indication to true professionalism in my opinion. Shit smells really bad when it hits the fan and you're sitting there not knowing why something isn't doing the thing it's supposed to do.

When you're intimate with your code I know, bleh you get a better sense of where the looser links are. From there you can start fixing when things go awry. It would really suck to answer a pissed off client with, "Sorry sir, the website we used to build your site on isn't working I see Webflow as another tool at my disposal, not a complete substitution for "hand coded" development.

In the same way that you don't list "Dreamweaver" on your resume I hope you don't list Webflow. I know, the only point I was making is that there is a massive hype about it when actually it isn't the best solution for building real websites. But I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not about Dreamweaver. It's leaps and bounds better to list your proficiency in languages than to put your percentage in DW or whatever else.

They don't care whether you use the latest alpha of web. I think you could say the same thing about TypeCast which someone mentioned earlier. Personally I really like TypeCast for quick testing but I'm not going to rely on it entirely. I think the functional piece of these tools is skipping photoshop all together, which many are now considering a best practice especially as website are becoming more dynamic responsiveness, animations, and other patterns aren't clear in a static mockup.

I heard about this post and so signed up here to respond. Cannot believe anyone would "hate" webflow but each to their own. First, by way of disclaimer, I do NOT work for webflow. Some of the thoughts or purported beliefs in this thread bother me to no end. First is this thing about "writing raw code and seeing it come to life. But in the real world of running a business that might need to crank out 5 or 10 or 25 websites a week, writing raw code and seeing it come to life is tantamount to bankruptcy in my opinion or else having to charge so much you exclude a majority of your potential customers.

Because, let's face it, building a complex and comprehensive website for a customer by hand takes a lot of time. Even with the automation of something like webflow it can takes weeks or longer to build a clients website and time is money either charged or paid.

You absolutely must have more of a sense of automation to survive in the real world business dealing with individuals and small business budgets, at least as we've learned it. This is just our opinion from running our own business and we have been in business since and serve hundreds of customers across the globe.

Oh, and individuals and small businesses generally don't know the difference between raw code, clean code or underwear. The internet machine might know the difference between raw code or clean code and it might care somewhat.

But it shows a page all the same regardless of what kind of hand or machine wrote it. Point being, when it comes down to it speaking from the mind of a business owner that designs sites everyday for individuals and small businesses and has employees to feed, and client budgets to keep what really only matters is does the site do what it is supposed to do and look like it is supposed to look?

Not whether it is written by hand or machine. But in terms of running a business you have to balance the clients needs and desires with the ability to produce good or better quality websites quickly, efficiently and cost effectively. It is for that which much of the negative-speak about Webflow I think trivializes Webflow because it is a great program.

We've used it to quickly and easily create beautiful responsive websites without having to write one piece of code by hand. This saves a ton of time, a ton of money, keeps our design costs low for our client and satisfies all the stakeholders. Our average client doesn't care about the means only the end result and Webflow enables us to quickly and easily accomplish the end result. But you cannot run a full-fledged business on that alone and expect to grow and survive.

I suppose if you are a single operator making your money one or two or three clients at a time, perhaps for sure. But when you have hundreds of clients and all of the things that go with running a business - automation is fantastic and Webflow is fantastic in that it helps us that way. And for the poster to say "There is a constant battle to have the latest technologies implemented and I just see it eventually falling behind," well, I know that is his opinion but it just comes across so rude to me to predict Webflow to fall behind, obviously he knows very little about the true Webflow and has not spent time with it like I have.

Personally, I'd like to see some of these sites the original poster so awesomely creates from hand getting dirty with the code, and see how they compare to an awesome Webflow site.

What's the difference I ask myself..? Maybe then I'd be able to have a better opinion about his hating Webflow. If you are not a designer and you want to build your own website, then themes and a CMS are the way to go. There are thousands of great inexpensive looks that are ready to go. If you are a developer and are working for a client with a solid budget, I don't believe you will ever be able to beat the speed, flexibility and extensibility of custom code.

I recently tried Dreamweaver as my top choice for a web development platform with high hopes from a name I have trusted like Adobe and was fairly disappointed. I really wanted to love it, and it had a few things I really did love. Dreamweaver lacks features which should be standard in "traditional" style web builders in , such as drag and drop functionality, as well as far more CSS design features than the half-baked setup Dreamweaver offers.

So, thing is You have done nothing innovative for the field in the last 20 years. You can't even compete with indie-developers. You could be the top of the line, best of the best, but instead your software remains mediocre and your competition blows you out of the water and you want to charge premium prices. Now I realize this is harsh, and if I am wrong here and someone wants to prove me wrong, I am perfectly willing to admit my fault. I don't write this as a "hate" post towards Adobe or Dreamweaver.

I write it to say, get your rear in gear! Dreamweaver is years behind. And the CSS designer? I can code CSS myself. TLDR; Dreamweaver could be the best of the best, but Adobe doesn't really bring anything innovative to the field and hasn't for the last 20 years, and other web development software far outpaces them for much more reasonable prices. Adobe is NOT interested in web development, then again, I do not consider Pinegrow as a serious web development program and many of its 'attempts' to make a more visual web site creation tool, are a joke to anyone serious about the profession.

The question one has to ask though, which I don't think even Adobe, or the Dw team know is - 'who is the target audiance for Dw'? That's not web development, that's an IDE that mimics online web designers like Wix.

Many, if not most, of us have spent years dedicating ourselves to coding. Learning everything from the inside out. We have no use for anything like what you want in an IDE. So, as the question was already asked, does Adobe know their target demographic? What is their target demographic? No one knows, apparently. On the other hand, I hear ya. When I say that the end-result of Dreamweaver site is an unstable piece of garbage, I mean that the code Dreamweaver generates is not even close to W3C compliant.

When I look at the source code for a webpage, I can tell within about five seconds if it was written in Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver encourages bad habits. If you have large website, magnify this problem and similar situations exponentially and you can see how bad it might get.

Your visitors will get tired of waiting for your crappy site to load and leave. Dreamweaver loves PHP. About Arthur Kay With nearly 20 years of software engineering and operations experience, Arthur Kay offers an extraordinary set of leadership skills and technical expertise to develop meaningful products and high-performing teams.