One Window Web-Development?

With last weeks comment scare, I think hope it’s now safe to use the comments again. Right now I’m wondering what web development app(s) my esteemed readers are using for their coding needs. Just this morning, John Gruber wrote about Coda, a so-called “one window web-development app”; meaning: one app to browse, code & upload your website.

But what’s so special about that? I’ve used Dreamweaver for ages, and it does just that: browse, code & upload. Are Coda and Dreamweaver really the only two apps that do this? And would you prefer such an environment, or do you have your own setup?

17 thoughts on “One Window Web-Development?”

  1. adam says:

    i use visual web developer for css, and VS.PHP for, obviously, PHP. they both have site management tools, but i rarely use them. since discovering SVN, i use it for everything.

    VWD has a really nice management pane for CSS. it groups your selectors into elements, classes, and ID’s, so that you have both your own organization system and theirs, which makes it really simple to find things.

  2. Joen says:

    i use visual web developer for css, and VS.PHP for, obviously, PHP. they both have site management tools, but i rarely use them. since discovering SVN, i use it for everything.

    And I thought I was hardcore šŸ™‚

    VWD has a really nice management pane for CSS. it groups your selectors into elements, classes, and ID?s, so that you have both your own organization system and theirs, which makes it really simple to find things.

    Sounds somewhat like what Dreamweaver does, maybe improved over it.

  3. Glenn says:

    I agree. Dreamweaver has been out for ages and has had all the functionality of Coda. Coda isn’t anything new however it might take up less resources and might be a little quicker than Dreamweaver.

  4. Joen says:

    Coda isn?t anything new however it might take up less resources and might be a little quicker than Dreamweaver.

    That might actually be enough.

  5. Gareth says:

    I use a cms (modx) which lets me do server side coding – css,php etc.. so no more constant uploading! using a EditArea Plugin I still get all the bells and whistles of a offline editor.

  6. Geof Harries says:

    You really have to demo Coda before you can compare it to Dreamweaver. Although they may seem similar, the approach that Coda takes is completely different, dare I say, “modern”. There’s a ton of interactivity with the app and it just feels really fluid all around.

  7. lm says:

    I use GoLive (exactly for the reasons one would use Dreamweaver for).

    It is pronounced dead by now but still old version works fine for me.

    You code, preview, upload, all is in there. Though i rather have some server side editor – to manage templates quicker.

  8. Joen says:

    I can sorta understand server-side coding, though I think I’d miss some of the advanced text-editing features.

    I can also (now, not before) see that Coda can make sense for two reasons: 1) price, 2) speed. I haven’t tested it though (I’m on Windows), but I can imagine those are their main competing points.

    As for GoLive, lm, you really should try something else, such as Dreamweaver. I realize there might be a price issue here, but trust me: Dreamweaver really kicks GoLive’s ass.

  9. lm says:

    ok If you are that Dreanweaver fan tell me what is in it that GoLive doesnt have.

    (Dont tell me it look nicer:D – i mean functionality here)

    By the way i have Dreamweaver too and when somebody in forum asks usual How to.. question, i open it and give advices o it šŸ˜€

    But as i got used to GoLive it seems much quicker for me stick with it for a time being.

    So I’m all ears:D

  10. Joen says:

    ok If you are that Dreanweaver fan tell me what is in it that GoLive doesnt have.

    (Dont tell me it look nicer:D – i mean functionality here)

    Well, fair enough.

    • You may call the different interface a “nicety”, but I really prefer the Dreamweaver interface.
    • Both Dreamweaver and GoLive are WYSIWYG applications, which usually isn’t a good thing when you’re hand-coding HTML and CSS. If you are, however, Dreamweaver respects your code. It doesn’t alter it, format it (unless you tell it to) or “correct it”. I had a fried who used GoLive for corrections on an HTML project I had started. The project used small PHP include files (sidebar, header, that sort of thing). Dreamweaver had no problem with these snippets being “part of a website”, whilst GoLive insisted on inserting a header language tag.
    • The ease of switching between code / design is just great in Dreamweaver.
    • The site management panel is well integrated, and a shortcut such as “ctrl + shift + u” allows me to instantly upload the file I’m working on.
    • The very fact that Dreamweaver is newer, means it better understands the way websites are coded today using XHTML and CSS.
    • Dreamweaver has a great “clean up Word 2003 HTML“, which is soooo useful those few times you need it.

    There are lots of other reasons for my liking DW over GL. Bottomline, I think it’s definately preferrable.

  11. lm says:
    1. Dreamweaver has a great ?clean up Word 2003 HTML?, which is soooo useful those few times you need it.

    I didnt get this one. I to be honest im too tired to look into what it is ( i will do it tomorrow). GoLive has its syntax and spelling check but i guess you meant something else.

    I use Golive code view only and preview what i code in 3 browsers ( right away) so still from what i see for my small projects it does its job. IT has its annoying problems and CSS looks quite lousy:D – sometimes i use superdouche afterwards:D i know how retarded it sounds.:D But when tool is working you think twice before you get rid of it dont you?

    Still. May be this ?clean up Word 2003 HTML? will force me to switch to Dreamweaver.

    Thank you for your review.

  12. Joen says:

    I didnt get this one. I to be honest im too tired to look into what it is ( i will do it tomorrow). GoLive has its syntax and spelling check but i guess you meant something else.

    Basically, sometimes some salesguy says “hey put this on the website”, and they’ve proudly used the “Save as HTML” feature in Word. Problem is, the code is despicable. Run it through DWs filter and you shave 90% of the fat right off.

    But when tool is working you think twice before you get rid of it dont you?

    Of course!

  13. lm says:

    oh this is just gross – all this junk from Save as HTML in Word.

    I work only with clean code thats why i didnt need this feature so far . But good to know that there are a ‘cleaning” abilities in DW.

  14. Ash Haque says:

    Coda looks pretty good, but since I do most of my coding in windows, I use editpad (for all types of coding), and Crystal FTP Pro (for uploading)

  15. I use vim and mercurial (replaces subversion for me). And a web browser for documentation.

    Adam, how do you use svn? Something more advanced than just committing on the local machine and updating on the remote machine? WebDAV?

  16. Johan says:

    I’m using server-side vim and winscp to upload files. Firefox can be handy with some plugins.

  17. While I don’t use dreamweaver and single-window anymore, I miss many things form it, and would prefer to have an environment like that, where vim was the editor.

    Now I usually do what Johan mentioned – log in directly to the server over ssh and edit with vim, unless it’s really major stuff.

Comments are closed.