Flaming notepad - Defense of Dreamweaver

I've seen a few flames about dreamweaver, and some of the attempts to suggest notepad as an editor for newbies are as amusing as they are irresponsible.

I do agree that a fundamental understand of html code is necessary for any good web designer. But if you can honestly tell me that you can type out a 6x6 table in notepad as quickly as dw can generate it, and can accurately implement and test the insertion of images and the checking of sizes as easily as dw previews them for you then you are lying. Plus there is no better way to learn html than to see the code in action and play with it. I've learnt a lot from just checking out the source code to websites I admire.

Besides, if all those notepad users out there actually knew anything other than how great they are, you would be using a proper text editor like emacs which genuinely is quick to use and does things like code highlighting, auto-tabbing, shortcut keys etc. And yes, there is emacs for windoze (not sure about the mac tho).

A sculptor starts with a stone and then chips away to reveal his artwork. Dreamweaver is good for mass creation of code and then the skilled editor refines that code by hand.

One of the funniest things I read in a recent thread was the talk of "efficiency" by hand coding - 50 lines is quicker to download than 150 lines. How amusing, if that person actually knew anything he would know that the 50 lines may be 1k and the 150 lines a whole 3k - and that's being kind to their argument. When you compare that to the images a website would probably have, it is such an insignificant amount that it does not matter - a difference in downloading time of all of 0.1s. Plus dw hardly inserts extra code (js excluded) but instead lays it out neatly - probably adding to the extra lines. You have to realise it is not the number of lines in the code but the number of characters that matters. It is just a ridiculous argument to make for the non-use of dw.

Can people try and set a good example for 'newbies' rather than posting opinions that are only relevant to people of their experience. There's no way somebody who doesn't know much html can handcode anything from scratch. Dreamweaver (and other programs) gives them a fighting chance plus they can learn the code by seeing how the programs create it.

I know HTML and JS back and forward, so I just code everything myself in Notepad

I was not intending to criticize those who use notepad, but I am saying using something like dw speeds up the code developement as well as being much better for inexperienced web designers.

Besides, you should check out emacs @ gnu.org because it whoops notepad to hell and back as a basic editor once you know the basic commands.

Yea, I would much rather use Dreamweaver or something like it to make pages, but I don't know if it'll be hard to learn how to use them. If I was to get one, I don't know which is best to use :(

is this an old post? i don't care, i am still responding...

i use dreamweaver and arachnophilia. i never use dreamweaver for anything very complex because it gets sloppy.

i have a problem with newbies that spend a week with dreamweaver and then try to start their own web design business.

anyone can 'view source' and the pros will quickly be separated from the amateurs. (you may not care if you are only building your cool warez site or your grandma's knitting homepage and that's fine)

i've seen people waste a lot of money on bad sites designed by people with no clue. its easy to start a web design business, but not so easy to start a good one.

take the time to learn the **** first.

whats with those stars?
we can't say '****' on here?

Can people try and set a good example for 'newbies' rather than posting opinions that are only relevant to people of their experience. There's no way somebody who doesn't know much html can handcode anything from scratch.

K, as someone who's 96% self-taught and has worked on projects for clients like BankOne, El Paso Energy, etc. I'll go ahead and figure I have experience that could be relevant. I learned HTML with two things: http://www.webmonkey.com/ and Notepad. Was I fast to start with? Heck no, took me forever. But after a couple weeks I really undrestood what the code was doing. After a few months I REALLY understood what the code was doing. By the time I started messing with Dreamweaver (which took me, oh, about a day to figure out since I knew what it was actually creating as far as code very well) I had an incredibly in-depth understanding of HTML and could use DW with hand-coding/editing to knock out HTML in a heartbeat. Moral of the story is that the reason I can do that is because I took the time to learn it first. I agree that if you're doing production there's not a great reason to hand-code all your HTML because it'll generally take far longer (except for you rare, weird people, and if you can hand-code faster then more power to ya), use an editor. Thing is, there's really no reason for a newbie to need to knock out a page really quickly, and learning it well first will be incredibly valuable to them in the long run. As I've mentioned before, I don't generally let anyone I'm teaching HTML to use Dreamweaver until then can at least hand-code a basic table first. I've seen too many designers who are useless technically to think otherwise.

Plus there is no better way to learn html than to see the code in action and play with it.

I'll actually completely disagree with that. Something like C, javascript, actionscript, then yes, modifying existing code , changing existing data structures in a piece of code, etc., is very helpful for learning. HTML is a really straightforward language though, if I put "this tag" I get "this". Completely creating something yourself is really easy, and seeing "I do this I get this result" is a great way to learn IMO.

Two (or a few more) cents...

Chris

Charm, I agree it's ridiculous that people who don't understand what they are doing and merely use a tool to acheive mediocrity milk people for money. But you would have to slightly question the lack of research made by somebody who would pay for amateur services, and I was not suggesting promoting the temporary use of dreamweaver to make money? I am saying it is a good learning tool as you can see the effect of built up html.

Fig, I used web monkey a lot in my early days, but notepad is possibly the worst text editor you could use. There are so many programs you could download that would make editting code so much easier (ultraedit, emacs etc). It's like recommending a trowel as a tool for digging a large hole when there are spades available (dw would be your preverbial JCB).

And as regards the 'code in action'. A few lines of C may accomplish something... for anything half decent in html requires quite a lot of code.

I would agree that somebody who doesn't understand the very very basics (eg table constructs) shouldn't be using dw and maybe I should have stated that. I mean for somebody who is familiar with the basic syntax but doesn't really know how to apply it or the subtleties of some of the changes you make, then dw is a decent tool for learning how to apply your basic knowledge.

Advocating dreamweaver for newbies is ridiculous.

Before we get into any arguements about ease of learning and "sculpting stone" there is one simple fact that needs adressing: Notepade, arachnophilia, Textpad and their ilk are free. Dreamweaver currently sells for 299$ gringo dollars.

Suggesting that newbs go lay down 300 american dollars for software...


Secondly:

A sculptor starts with a stone and then chips away to reveal his artwork. Dreamweaver is good for mass creation of code and then the skilled editor refines that code by hand.

Newbies are A) unlikely to be making massive amounts of code and B) are not skilled editors.

They aren't learning HTML with this method.. they are learning to use Dreamweaver and then clean up after its little spills...
A crutch in other words.

html is not hard. don't be scared off by those fat html reference books.

learning html by using dreamweaver is like learning to play the violin by giving a concert.