|
|
Posted by Michael Trausch on 03/31/06 08:57
Hallvard B wrote:
>
> Of course, you might be right, if you are a really dedicated
> programmer/web developer who works a lot that way. For my own case I
> have to tell you that I have worked a lot in previous times with coding
> of printed matters (before DTP). Which resulted in poor design, and a
> lot to much focus on the coding part (in my case anyway).
>
> The popularity of Dreamweaver proofs that at least a lot of people like
> it that way.
>
Not necessarily. I've used Dreamweaver a lot in the past, but I've
never used it for WYSIWYG design. When I used it at an old employer, I
found that I just used the neat features in it that allowed me to see
browser compatibility problems.
Note, however, that everything that DW gives you, you *can* do by hand.
And in many cases, when you're working on something that is XHTML
based, you're not going to want DW to spew that stuff at you, because
it's going to do it all over the place. That's what the W3C validators
are for.
To do my work nowadays, I typically use emacs running on Linux or *BSD.
It's concise, does syntax highlighting, has the ability to integrate
with source code control systems such as CVS and Subversion, and works
quite well. You can even use it for things like the Smarty template
system and CSS and all of that, because there are different modes for
all of that.
That having been said, some people like vi just as fine for XHTML/PHP
editing. IIRC, it handles all of the syntax highlighting, too. And
there are a number of environments for both GNOME and KDE that can help
you to see things with syntax highlighting in your code.
Personally, I find that syntax highlighting, combined with a little bit
of common sense, can fix many mistakes that you would potentially
otherwise make. Of course, it doesn't fix all of them...
- Mike
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|