When I was learning to build websites in 2010 Dreamweaver was the go-to. I remember it thoroughly confused the heck out of me. Anyone here able to use it effectively?
Dreamweaver confused? It was a drag & drop & point & click web builder; what was confusing about it? There are many similar tools now, free and paid, haven't heard about Dreamweaver in a long while, so while I don't understand the confusing part, I am very curious if anyone is using it still. I do see it is still sold (and maintained?).
I would hope nobody is using it for anything professional now but it was definitely used back in the day, my first professional development job was for a small agency which used Dreamweaver for everything. I'm not saying that was a good thing, it generated some of the worst code I've ever seen, but it was used.
It is always funny to see "professional" code or tools compared with "toys". In reality, it is precisely the "professional", "enterprise" stuff that turns out to be a giant pile of shit (which we rarely get to see from outside). There are professional businesses storing their main database in Excel, while the amateurs obsess over whether Postgres is scalable enough.
While you are correct that few are using it to build "professional" sites, it was never really a toy. Pretty powerful for the time, and even let you integrate with a number of backend technologies, database servers, etc. For today's world, where you need 3000 Javascript packages to display "Hello World", it's not a good fit.
I used it yesterday to plot out a deck I'm building. The ability to draw easily, snap to grid, custom rulers, makes it a great design tool. Better than Corel Draw anyway.
Flash being a persistent security hole and memory hog is what killed it. Adobe should have gotten their shit together. Apple saved us from the hell of fixed resolution flash apps and dozens of flash ads on a page.
Steve Jobs talked about this- when asked by the audience why he wasn't supporting Flash, he said the main thing people will be missing out on is banner ads. And he was mostly right.
There's an app called Wappler that was developed by the same folks from DMXzone, which was quite well-known for its Dreamweaver add-ons at the time. It's the closer you will find of a direct successor.
I am volunteering in a school library and someone „built“ their system with Dreamweaver and FileMaker. It’s still in use on an airgapped winxp machine.
That's ironically still the easiest way to go for HTML emails as the output is almost guaranteed to display well across various email clients that don't implement CSS properly (Outlook).
IIRC Outlook[1] just uses the Word engine internally, so it's going to share the same quirks.
(I also seem to remember that Internet Explorer's Trident engine started as a fork from Word, although that's presumably a bit less direct in the later versions).
[1] At least proper desktop Win32 Outlook, not the dozens of other things Microsoft have called Outlook.
Using view source in IE to discover how certain layouts and effects were done and trying to replicate it on Notepad... and then downloading Dreamweaver because you were a n00b and needed that WYSIWYG goodness.
FrontPage Express was what I used to build my first website. (personal project with friends) I learned so much about HTML simply because of the limitations in FrontPage Express.
I was a kid the last time I touched front page. Why did my simple site need front page extensions on the server? It was basically a static site. Finding a free web host with those extensions was near impossible.
> Why did my simple site need front page extensions on the server?
Frontpage could do FTP under ideal conditions.
> Finding a free web host with those extensions was near impossible.
Once upon a time I made a cgi version of the fpse protocol because Windows was so expensive to run, so it's a shame you didn't find it. The internet was smaller back then, but maybe not as small as I remember.
I implemented a few "webbot"s as cgi scripts instead of activex controls (like counter and search and even the 'Visual InterDev Navigation Bar' if you remember that). Dreamweaver never had anything like that - and cold fusion really was a bit further than most of my customers could handle on their own.
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-18859-1
<title FrontPage Configuration Information </title>
</head>
<body>
<!-- _vti_inf.html version 0.100>
<!--
This file contains important information used by the FrontPage client
(the FrontPage Explorer and FrontPage Editor) to communicate with the
FrontPage server extensions installed on this web server.
The values below are automatically set by FrontPage at installation.
Normally, you do not need to modify these values, but in case
you do, the parameters are as follows:
'FPShtmlScriptUrl', 'FPAuthorScriptUrl', and 'FPAdminScriptUrl' specify
the relative urls for the scripts that FrontPage uses for remote
authoring. These values should not be changed.
'FPVersion' identifies the version of the FrontPage Server Extentions
installed, and should not be changed.
--><!-- FrontPage Configuration Information
FPVersion="4.0.2.2717"
FPShtmlScriptUrl="_vti_bin/shtml.exe/_vti_rpc"
FPAuthorScriptUrl="_vti_bin/_vti_aut/author.exe"
FPAdminScriptUrl="_vti_bin/_vti_adm/admin.exe"
-->
<p><!--webbot bot="PurpleText"
preview="This page is placed into the root directory of your FrontPage web when FrontPage is installed. It contains information used by the FrontPage client to communicate with the FrontPage server extentions installed on this web server. You should not delete this file."
--></p>
<h1>FrontPage Configuration Information</h1>
<p>In the HTML comments, this page contains configuration information
that the FrontPage Explorer and FrontPage Editor need to communicate with
the FrontPage server extentions installed on this web server. In short,
do not delete this page.</p>
</body>
</html>
I do!!!!!! I love dreamwaver even today, I'm surprised people don't use it, they have done an amazing job keeping it up to date - it's honestly a joy to use. Granted: I'm not a real dev/swe, just a dude who likes to mess around with webtech, still, I think "real devs" would enjoy it too, it's great to use.
I learn web on dreamweaver, I would make something on the front end WYSIWYG editor, and then "turn it around" (I called it in my head) and look at the "back of it" (I was a kid) - anyway, tables and frames and dhtml baby!!!!
I did the same, except with Netscape Composer. That was a time where the output of the WYSIWYG editor - really, the source of any page - was pretty digestible, even to me as a middle school student.
I've noticed recently that the JavaScript debugger in Firefox can "un-Webpack" (and in some cases un-minify, if I've read the inputs and outputs correctly) the code behind many sites. It's certainly not as approachable as declarative HTML, but I suspect to some enterprising person, that route is still open.
I think it was Microsoft FrontPage that had the most undigestible output at the time. A mess of tables, inline styles, Internet Explorer-specific tricks, plus a reliance on FrontPage Server Extensions for full functionality.
Adobe still had GoLive at the time, which was basically what Dreamweaver is now, and it didn't mangle the output as much, neither did Netscape Composer (which was way more limited). Many of the simpler WYSIWYG editors (Netscape Composer, that thing AOL had, etc.) were not nearly as bad as FrontPage.
FrontPage was indeed terrible, it caused me to make an even worse decision in the 1990’s—-make websites almost entirely out of image maps, and then eventually that terrible idea evolved into the classic terrible approach to early ‘00’s web frontends (bum bum bum): Macromedia Flash and Actionscript (the latter of which I actually remember fondly, although I may just be remembering it with rose-tinted glasses).
> I think it was Microsoft FrontPage that had the most undigestible output at the time.
Nah, I would argue that was Microsoft Word's (Office?) Save as Web Page feature. Which is what I built my first few websites in as a kid haha before learning about FrontPage and pirating that (back in 2003). FrontPage was a dream in comparison. Then I learned that FrontPage was also not as good, and learnt Dreamweaver is the better option so pirated and tried to use that shortly after, but the WYSIWYG of FrontPage was leagues better to my little child brain. Ah, nostalgia :')
> I think it was Microsoft FrontPage that had the most undigestible output at the time.
I remember, a bit over 20 years ago, designing a rather complex web app using Microsoft FrontPage – I used it to mock up all the HTML forms, which I then took screenshots of and showed them to the business analyst and got her to approve them.
Then I implemented the whole thing in PHP 4.x (I think PHP 5.0 had just come out around that time but we weren't using it yet.)
So I never really used the HTML of FrontPage, I just used it for what people use Figma for nowadays.
> I've noticed recently that the JavaScript debugger in Firefox can "un-Webpack" (and in some cases un-minify, if I've read the inputs and outputs correctly) the code behind many sites. It's certainly not as approachable as declarative HTML, but I suspect to some enterprising person, that route is still open.
That's just sourcemaps I think. Pretty standard stuff, but the site have to provide the maps.
Homesite was the first editor I used extensively for web development (after trying some of the other options like HotDog Pro, etc). It was small enough, and simple enough, that you could run it directly from a 1.44mb floppy. (I was poor in college and relied on computer labs) Later went on to use Allaire's ColdFusion Studio, which was a superset of Homesite, for several years.
I loved dreamweaver when starting out. Never got on with the WYSIWYG (hence moving on), but its ability to read your CSS file and suggest classes was great. MX was the pinnacle in early 2000s.
More relevant to me though, I miss Fireworks so much. Nothing comes closer. Figma is great but web based and already shown willing to sell out everyone who trusts them.
Dreamweaver was how I learned MySQL back when I was 12-13 and got into web development. I don't remember how I came across it but somehow things, the way they were laid out at the time, made sense to me. This would ripple into a career that's making my living 16 years later.
I remember downloading XAMPP and installing it to get a local MySQL and PhpMyAdmin server. A few clicks in Dreamweaver later, I somehow had a connection file that would connect to my local MySQL server. I started playing around with it and creating different forms. The MySQL query generators on Dreamweaver were so simple that you could, with a few clicks, have a full on CRM.
I ended up coding a test score reporting system for my middle school class and the school somehow trusted me and started using it. This made me possibly the most hated person in the school because parents could now see their kids scores every day and there was no more "Oh the teacher hasn't given out the scores yet." But it was good times, and I was so excited about it.
Many years later, I now run a startup and have transitioned into using Node.js but MySQL is still my bread and butter. I still remember that day when I discovered the SELECT query.
When Dreamweaver integrates GPT4o it will finally reach mainstream. I can imagine the podcast ad-spots already. Watch out SquareSpace. Disruption comes for us all.
(P.S: I did use Dreamweaver in the early 2000s. It was great. I’m surprised it still is running! RIP Fireworks)
What's even more interesting is when you look at some of those tools, many of them were actually way more straightforward to use to design websites without much coding than what we have today. Just like how we had all those CRUD rapid app development tools that would build the app for you just from a database model (Access, PowerBuilder, Delphi, FoxPro...). While what we have today is arguably way more powerful, we've lost some of that simplicity (at least for more trivial use cases) along the way.
I always felt like Adobe‘s big problem was they were fixated on trying to adapt any web technology to work for print designers, that any design should fit in a certain window size or resolution. This worked ok until mobile devices hit a certain tipping point and the idea of responsive design became king. They didn’t know how to handle that, and the tools fell way behind.
I can’t imagine anyone is still using Dreamweaver—that market must have been utterly subsumed by Squarespace. If you are a, say, small business that needs a 3–5 page marketing site with contact info and about pages, surely it makes more sense to use Squarespace (or wix, or what have you).
But this sent me down a memory rabbit hole…a former manager of mine loved Brackets. Brackets was Adobe’s open-source text editor (https://opensource.adobe.com/brackets.io/?lang=en) that was sorta VSCode, but prettier.
Adobe sunsetted that project, but it still apparently somewhat lives on, in the form of Phoenix Code. (https://phcode.dev) And it still does look very “designed” in comparison to VSCode. I really like the default typography, tag highlighting, and some of the details of the text editor itself.
> I can’t imagine anyone is still using Dreamweaver—that market must have been utterly subsumed by Squarespace. If you are a, say, small business that needs a 3–5 page marketing site with contact info and about pages, surely it makes more sense to use Squarespace (or wix, or what have you).
You're right, considering that Dreamweaver is SaaS now. Were it a single purchase it would actually be more affordable for independent webmasters making websites as one could buy a single copy of Dreamweaver, make several websites, and host them on a single server with multiple domain names, while not paying the subscription over and over again.
Does it? IMO it looks very outdated and cluttered compared to most editors. Clicking around a bit, this screen specifically stood out to me as lacking a lot of visual hierarchy: https://i.imgur.com/Y7iBS2p.png. It just kind of reads as a visual jumble with too many elements competing for your attention with slightly different/incoherent styling—I count 5 different unique button styles on this page alone, with some buttons having flat borders, some buttons having shiny highlights, and 3 completely different shades of grey button borders. Definitely doesn't feel "designed" to me.
> But this sent me down a memory rabbit hole…a former manager of mine loved Brackets. Brackets was Adobe’s open-source text editor (https://opensource.adobe.com/brackets.io/?lang=en) that was sorta VSCode, but prettier.
Oh wow, I remember playing around with this editor sometime in the mid 2010s (post-Atom, I think, and pre-VSCode existence(?)/dominance).
Was that an Electron project too? Can't recall.
Friend of mine insisted it was the best for web development. I feel like I used it once and totally forgot about it until now.
I also recall that one mac specific editor that was popular at that time? Textmate maybe?
No, no one is using it. It never was a go-to tool even back then. I feel old by just remembering it.
Dreamweaver solved no one's problems.
1) Regular users didn't need it: they couldn't use it for publishing their web-sites anyway. They quickly just switched to social media for publishing their content.
2) Dreamweaver was not a great tool for professionals too. Its code editor was not convenient and overall the program felt really poor in features. It never could catch up with new features of web. Besides, no one creates whole pages and Dreamweaver didn't support dividing a page into parts like header, main part, menu, articles footer etc, as far as I remember. This would be a way too much complicated task to implement.
So it was just a tool for students. If you were learning HTML, it was a fine tool to learn it. That's it. It was never used in real work.
The name "Dreamweaver" is really cool though, I must give them credit. It sounds even way too cool for such a simple program as it was. It should have been used for an iconic film or a video game instead.
Unexpected bottom line: do we need something like Dreamweaver which wouldn't suck? Yes. Figma got so successful because it allowed creating prototypes and was solving real life problems. Now a new program like Dreamweaver could solve the problem of quick prototyping and generating HTML code for something like React components.
Would it be a complicated app? Yes. Would it require a lot of programming? Yes. Would it immediately bring money? No. So currently it's probably won't be a good idea to work on it.
You can create something like a visual editor module for HTML pages or react components to be used in modern IDEs. Maybe even just by embedding a non-read only WebView with some cleverly butchered developer tools and sell that module to companies for a cheap subscription.
"Would it be a complicated app? Yes. Would it require a lot of programming? Yes. Would it immediately bring money? No. So currently it's probably won't be a good idea to work on it."
Consider that web browsers essentially do the reverse of HTML editors such as Dreamweaver. Moreover, all current web browsers do a much better job at rendering web pages from HTML than do WYSIWYG editors do at turning text into HTML.
I don't think many appreciate how sophisticated web browsers are these days. Now consider that browsers such as Firefox and Chromium are open source, their code could be used to develop HTML editors.
The question I keep asking is why aren't there a plethora of HTML editors out there that harness the algorithms these browsers already use for their own development.
As you suggest, producing a good HTML editor is very hard work, if it weren't then there'd be many good editors out there but there aren't. Take wordprocessors with a 'save as HTML' option and one will find the code they produde ranges from almost unusable to abominable.
Same goes for email editors that produce HTML-formatted emails. For example, Thunderbird has about the worst HTML editor around, it's brain-dead and full of bugs, and it's been like that for decades. It's as if those at Mozilla are terrified to touch it for fear that they'll kill it altogether.
Now keep in mind that Thunderbird actually uses the Firefox engine so what's going on here? With Thunderbird is the browser code completely divorced from its email editor?
OK, you may well say that's just how is it with Thunderbird, the editor evolved separately to its rendering engine. I'll then say take a good look at BlueGriffon which is quite an excellent HTML editor based on Firefox (despite the fact that it's awkward to use and hasn't been updated in ages). How come its developer can produce good HTML whereas Thunderbird's developers don't seem to have a clue?
Also, how relevant to this discussion is the fact that BlueGriffon's development has ceased: http://bluegriffon.org/. What's the actual reason for the developer ceasing development (there's likely more than he's stating on his webpage)?
Right, perhaps somewhere in all that comment lies the path to actual truth of the matter—that is, how difficult it is to actually make a decent HTML editor?
I've been on the lookout for a good open-source HTML editor for years and I've yet to see a decent discussion, analysis or exposé of the subject. Why not?
It's still impossible to sort out whether the demand for a decent HTML editor just isn't there or whether it's a too bigger project and not worth the effort.
I wish those who are truly in the know would put this matter to rest. Many of us who don't wish to delve deep into web browser/editor code would love some answers.
I heard recently during the big government purge that a lot of the actual mechanics of that purge functioned by revoking people's Dreamweaver licenses, and that a lot of .gov websites run on Dreamweaver. Probably the US government is singlehandedly keeping Dreamweaver alive through large annual contracts for new features. I don't have any concrete sources on this, it was just Twitter gossip, but it makes a lot of sense to me—Dreamweaver provides the ability for non-technical government employees to edit the site, low system requirements for the servers, and presumably enough Enterprise features to ensure template homogeneity across an org as large as USG.
I had no idea that you could even still get a copy of Dreamweaver anymore, but a quick search seems to confirm that, indeed, you can still get it.
As a teenager I used to use a pirated copy of Dreamweaver, and it was cool but I eventually just learned HTML since I found that the stuff I wrote ended up being better than the stuff being generated by Dreamweaver, and of course that had the advantage of being legal and free. I'm sure that the HTML exporter has gotten a lot better since 2005, but I have moved as far away from web development as I could since then because web development is terrible.
A small part of me wants to try the latest Dreamweaver now but I don't have a Windows or Mac computer anymore.
Macromedia didn't mind the piracy at the time. People learned from pirated versions and then went to work in companies that bought licenses. They bootstrapped the company with that tactic. Same with Flash.
Not trying to make the piracy seem "right" or anything, but I would like to point out that I didn't make any money with the pirated Macromedia software either. I made a couple cartoons that got blammed on Newgrounds, did the examples in the Animator's Survival Kit, and then decided I'm not smart enough to be creative and did software instead.
I worked with Macromedia at the time and they were all for people pirating their software and actually listened to them talk about seeding their betas to pirates.
This is pretty much my experience too, back then I had a copy of a 1000+ page book called HTML 4 The Complete Reference.
With that tome on my desk it honestly didn't take much work to be able to do a better job than Dreamweaver using notepad and writing HTML by hand.
I never got into the advanced Dreamweaver features, am sure I remember loads of stuff around managing complete sites with it, etc. But from a purely front end developers perspective it always seemed superfluous.
Fireworks could have been Figma, it could have been the default platform every designer used. But Adobe didn't understand it, they saw it as a weird Photoshop competitor and shelved it.
The last few versions bundled with CS were clearly neglected maintenance releases. I finally stopped using my slowing rotting copy in about 2014 when I got a Mac with a retina screen and fireworks was stuck with a terrible pixel doubled ui. :-(
I held on until 2020. At some point I had to give up MacOS updates to keep it going.
I still haven't found an acceptable replacement, choosing instead to design in-browser with CSS. Of course this means I can't make graphic heavy designs that I can slice and export with transparent PNGs, but we haven't cycled back to that sort of design yet so I'll be OK with minimalist crap for a while.
Fireworks came with the Macromedia Studio MX 2004 suite (I had the education version -- ~$299 was the happy medium for me between full price and pirating). While I made great use of Flash and Dreamweaver in that bundle, Fireworks was always an enigma. I think it exported some animated gifs for me. What did y'all make with it?
fireworks is still the best 2d graphics design system I’ve ever used.
I used to make a non-insignificant amount of rasterised computer “art” using fireworks, its discontinuance (and the fact that photoshop was not at all a replacement) killed that for me.
I had only used dreamweaver a small amount at highschool, but the imac we had at home had a Coda license on it. While I don't think I could comfortably use Dreamweaver to make something today, Coda is possibly usable. Coda 2 since came out which I never tried, and now it's a new editor called Nova, which I was using for a short while but has strayed away from the style-focused Coda 1.x.
I would like to see that class of "make your own website" desktop editors come back, that bridge the line between dreamweaver and IntelliJ. Just a few core IDE features that make it not a pain to use, and just a few GUI features to make designing easy.
182 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 237 ms ] threadAge check if you’re shuddering now.
[0] https://pinegrow.com
(I also seem to remember that Internet Explorer's Trident engine started as a fork from Word, although that's presumably a bit less direct in the later versions).
[1] At least proper desktop Win32 Outlook, not the dozens of other things Microsoft have called Outlook.
Can anyone explain how this is even possible? It's 2025.
https://github.com/Automattic/juice
Frontpage could do FTP under ideal conditions.
> Finding a free web host with those extensions was near impossible.
Once upon a time I made a cgi version of the fpse protocol because Windows was so expensive to run, so it's a shame you didn't find it. The internet was smaller back then, but maybe not as small as I remember.
I implemented a few "webbot"s as cgi scripts instead of activex controls (like counter and search and even the 'Visual InterDev Navigation Bar' if you remember that). Dreamweaver never had anything like that - and cold fusion really was a bit further than most of my customers could handle on their own.
I learn web on dreamweaver, I would make something on the front end WYSIWYG editor, and then "turn it around" (I called it in my head) and look at the "back of it" (I was a kid) - anyway, tables and frames and dhtml baby!!!!
Also: https://s.h4x.club/nOu445qL :) :)
I've noticed recently that the JavaScript debugger in Firefox can "un-Webpack" (and in some cases un-minify, if I've read the inputs and outputs correctly) the code behind many sites. It's certainly not as approachable as declarative HTML, but I suspect to some enterprising person, that route is still open.
Adobe still had GoLive at the time, which was basically what Dreamweaver is now, and it didn't mangle the output as much, neither did Netscape Composer (which was way more limited). Many of the simpler WYSIWYG editors (Netscape Composer, that thing AOL had, etc.) were not nearly as bad as FrontPage.
Edit: clarification of bad writing
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/567790.Creating_Killer_W...
grew out of.
Note the follow-up article: "The Web is Ruined and I Ruined It"
https://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s1.people.html
Nah, I would argue that was Microsoft Word's (Office?) Save as Web Page feature. Which is what I built my first few websites in as a kid haha before learning about FrontPage and pirating that (back in 2003). FrontPage was a dream in comparison. Then I learned that FrontPage was also not as good, and learnt Dreamweaver is the better option so pirated and tried to use that shortly after, but the WYSIWYG of FrontPage was leagues better to my little child brain. Ah, nostalgia :')
I remember, a bit over 20 years ago, designing a rather complex web app using Microsoft FrontPage – I used it to mock up all the HTML forms, which I then took screenshots of and showed them to the business analyst and got her to approve them.
Then I implemented the whole thing in PHP 4.x (I think PHP 5.0 had just come out around that time but we weren't using it yet.)
So I never really used the HTML of FrontPage, I just used it for what people use Figma for nowadays.
That's just sourcemaps I think. Pretty standard stuff, but the site have to provide the maps.
ps: Kevin Lynch got a nice career now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Lynch_(computing)
Even better than steroids by step sometimes.
And also to let another LLM create your Figma storyboards from your novel design ideas.
And asking a third LLM to give you some novel design ideas.
Have you found success with some models over others?
10 prompts to add a new feature.
20 prompts to add a second feature and fix everything that broke in the 1st feature while adding the second.
50 prompts to add a third feature and fix what broke in the 1st and 2nd features while adding the third.
In the damp bedroom where the doges lie,
One Prompt to rule them all, One prompt to find them,
One Prompt to bring them all and in the darkness bind them,
In the damp bedroom where the black molds lie.
Edit: don't judge me I'm not a poet.
But I loved HomeSite.
https://nick.typepad.com/blog/2009/06/homesite-discontinued....
More relevant to me though, I miss Fireworks so much. Nothing comes closer. Figma is great but web based and already shown willing to sell out everyone who trusts them.
Dreamweaver was how I learned MySQL back when I was 12-13 and got into web development. I don't remember how I came across it but somehow things, the way they were laid out at the time, made sense to me. This would ripple into a career that's making my living 16 years later.
I remember downloading XAMPP and installing it to get a local MySQL and PhpMyAdmin server. A few clicks in Dreamweaver later, I somehow had a connection file that would connect to my local MySQL server. I started playing around with it and creating different forms. The MySQL query generators on Dreamweaver were so simple that you could, with a few clicks, have a full on CRM.
I ended up coding a test score reporting system for my middle school class and the school somehow trusted me and started using it. This made me possibly the most hated person in the school because parents could now see their kids scores every day and there was no more "Oh the teacher hasn't given out the scores yet." But it was good times, and I was so excited about it.
Many years later, I now run a startup and have transitioned into using Node.js but MySQL is still my bread and butter. I still remember that day when I discovered the SELECT query.
(P.S: I did use Dreamweaver in the early 2000s. It was great. I’m surprised it still is running! RIP Fireworks)
Early 2000s Adobe was stacked with web technology. They knew where the world was headed, but didn't quite capture it the right way.
Flash, Shockwave, Dreamweaver, Macromedia Homesite, Fireworks, Coldfusion, Adobe AIR, LiveMotion, Actionscript 3.0, MXML, Flex.
They shipped so much software, it's incredible.
Jeremy Allaire somehow flies under the radar as an impactful tech entrepreneur, but look at this resume: Allaire Corp, Macromedia, Brightcove, Circle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Allaire
But this sent me down a memory rabbit hole…a former manager of mine loved Brackets. Brackets was Adobe’s open-source text editor (https://opensource.adobe.com/brackets.io/?lang=en) that was sorta VSCode, but prettier.
Adobe sunsetted that project, but it still apparently somewhat lives on, in the form of Phoenix Code. (https://phcode.dev) And it still does look very “designed” in comparison to VSCode. I really like the default typography, tag highlighting, and some of the details of the text editor itself.
You're right, considering that Dreamweaver is SaaS now. Were it a single purchase it would actually be more affordable for independent webmasters making websites as one could buy a single copy of Dreamweaver, make several websites, and host them on a single server with multiple domain names, while not paying the subscription over and over again.
Oh wow, I remember playing around with this editor sometime in the mid 2010s (post-Atom, I think, and pre-VSCode existence(?)/dominance).
Was that an Electron project too? Can't recall.
Friend of mine insisted it was the best for web development. I feel like I used it once and totally forgot about it until now.
I also recall that one mac specific editor that was popular at that time? Textmate maybe?
Dreamweaver solved no one's problems.
1) Regular users didn't need it: they couldn't use it for publishing their web-sites anyway. They quickly just switched to social media for publishing their content.
2) Dreamweaver was not a great tool for professionals too. Its code editor was not convenient and overall the program felt really poor in features. It never could catch up with new features of web. Besides, no one creates whole pages and Dreamweaver didn't support dividing a page into parts like header, main part, menu, articles footer etc, as far as I remember. This would be a way too much complicated task to implement.
So it was just a tool for students. If you were learning HTML, it was a fine tool to learn it. That's it. It was never used in real work.
The name "Dreamweaver" is really cool though, I must give them credit. It sounds even way too cool for such a simple program as it was. It should have been used for an iconic film or a video game instead.
Unexpected bottom line: do we need something like Dreamweaver which wouldn't suck? Yes. Figma got so successful because it allowed creating prototypes and was solving real life problems. Now a new program like Dreamweaver could solve the problem of quick prototyping and generating HTML code for something like React components.
Would it be a complicated app? Yes. Would it require a lot of programming? Yes. Would it immediately bring money? No. So currently it's probably won't be a good idea to work on it.
You can create something like a visual editor module for HTML pages or react components to be used in modern IDEs. Maybe even just by embedding a non-read only WebView with some cleverly butchered developer tools and sell that module to companies for a cheap subscription.
Does this mean I need to return all my paychecks from 2004 to 2007?
Consider that web browsers essentially do the reverse of HTML editors such as Dreamweaver. Moreover, all current web browsers do a much better job at rendering web pages from HTML than do WYSIWYG editors do at turning text into HTML.
I don't think many appreciate how sophisticated web browsers are these days. Now consider that browsers such as Firefox and Chromium are open source, their code could be used to develop HTML editors.
The question I keep asking is why aren't there a plethora of HTML editors out there that harness the algorithms these browsers already use for their own development.
As you suggest, producing a good HTML editor is very hard work, if it weren't then there'd be many good editors out there but there aren't. Take wordprocessors with a 'save as HTML' option and one will find the code they produde ranges from almost unusable to abominable.
Same goes for email editors that produce HTML-formatted emails. For example, Thunderbird has about the worst HTML editor around, it's brain-dead and full of bugs, and it's been like that for decades. It's as if those at Mozilla are terrified to touch it for fear that they'll kill it altogether.
Now keep in mind that Thunderbird actually uses the Firefox engine so what's going on here? With Thunderbird is the browser code completely divorced from its email editor?
OK, you may well say that's just how is it with Thunderbird, the editor evolved separately to its rendering engine. I'll then say take a good look at BlueGriffon which is quite an excellent HTML editor based on Firefox (despite the fact that it's awkward to use and hasn't been updated in ages). How come its developer can produce good HTML whereas Thunderbird's developers don't seem to have a clue?
Also, how relevant to this discussion is the fact that BlueGriffon's development has ceased: http://bluegriffon.org/. What's the actual reason for the developer ceasing development (there's likely more than he's stating on his webpage)?
Right, perhaps somewhere in all that comment lies the path to actual truth of the matter—that is, how difficult it is to actually make a decent HTML editor?
I've been on the lookout for a good open-source HTML editor for years and I've yet to see a decent discussion, analysis or exposé of the subject. Why not?
It's still impossible to sort out whether the demand for a decent HTML editor just isn't there or whether it's a too bigger project and not worth the effort.
I wish those who are truly in the know would put this matter to rest. Many of us who don't wish to delve deep into web browser/editor code would love some answers.
As a teenager I used to use a pirated copy of Dreamweaver, and it was cool but I eventually just learned HTML since I found that the stuff I wrote ended up being better than the stuff being generated by Dreamweaver, and of course that had the advantage of being legal and free. I'm sure that the HTML exporter has gotten a lot better since 2005, but I have moved as far away from web development as I could since then because web development is terrible.
A small part of me wants to try the latest Dreamweaver now but I don't have a Windows or Mac computer anymore.
With that tome on my desk it honestly didn't take much work to be able to do a better job than Dreamweaver using notepad and writing HTML by hand.
I never got into the advanced Dreamweaver features, am sure I remember loads of stuff around managing complete sites with it, etc. But from a purely front end developers perspective it always seemed superfluous.
The one that I really miss is Macromedia Fireworks.
The perfect mix between vector editor + html editor + OOP.
And to think that it did all of that in the metadata of a binary format (png).
Nothing has come close.
It was a sad day for me when it got bought and integrated into Dreamweaver.
Fireworks could have been Figma, it could have been the default platform every designer used. But Adobe didn't understand it, they saw it as a weird Photoshop competitor and shelved it.
The last few versions bundled with CS were clearly neglected maintenance releases. I finally stopped using my slowing rotting copy in about 2014 when I got a Mac with a retina screen and fireworks was stuck with a terrible pixel doubled ui. :-(
I still haven't found an acceptable replacement, choosing instead to design in-browser with CSS. Of course this means I can't make graphic heavy designs that I can slice and export with transparent PNGs, but we haven't cycled back to that sort of design yet so I'll be OK with minimalist crap for a while.
I used to make a non-insignificant amount of rasterised computer “art” using fireworks, its discontinuance (and the fact that photoshop was not at all a replacement) killed that for me.
https://web.archive.org/web/20101007013748/http://panic.com/...
I had only used dreamweaver a small amount at highschool, but the imac we had at home had a Coda license on it. While I don't think I could comfortably use Dreamweaver to make something today, Coda is possibly usable. Coda 2 since came out which I never tried, and now it's a new editor called Nova, which I was using for a short while but has strayed away from the style-focused Coda 1.x.
I would like to see that class of "make your own website" desktop editors come back, that bridge the line between dreamweaver and IntelliJ. Just a few core IDE features that make it not a pain to use, and just a few GUI features to make designing easy.
I keep going back to Nova to see if it will recapture that magic, but it just can't compete with vscode these days
In 20+ years of employment I think I came across one developer who used it, and that was probably in 2005 or so!
Find it hard to imagine what kind of team would use it for development today.