looks like a lot of work. If it does what it claims, it would be pretty cool – from a “hey, that’s cool” standpoint, anyway. In general*, I find that replacing one learning curve with another is counterproductive.
My impression is that its usefulness to coders would be limited; its usefulness to non-coders would likely depend on how closely its UI follows Photoshop’s (and, of course, the quality of code it generates).
*emphasis on “in general.” My experience with this particular tool is currently limited to a quick glance at its homepage. I might be interested enough to try it out later.
@rahulkhosla, I don’t think this is involves hosting. I didn’t see anything about that on the site, anyway…? Looks like just an app.
Yes I was about to say that, It looks VERY much (even down to the interface) like Adobe Edge Reflow, I’ve played around with the Edge Reflow Preview and it was alright… missing features but that should be fixed in the 1.0 release, it’s a preview after all.
I may keep tabs on this, but it would take a amazing program to get web pros to change from writing their code to drawing it…
When I see programs like this I wish they would integrate a code editor in them as well. and give us the option of writing the code or drawing it. instead of just drawing it, now THAT would get my attention.
>**I may keep tabs on this, but it would take a amazing program to get web pros to change from writing their code to drawing it…**
Yes, but I think Adobe would probably be the first to say it’s not for professionals.
Will they eventually retire DW & wrap Brackets/Edge/Muse into a single package once the technology is ready? It’s possible, I think not, there are so many applications out there that can do each part of the DW offering that each makes more sense (to me) to offer them individually but make sure they work with each other seamlessly.
I initially thought the same thing in comparison with Adobe Edge. However, I’m betting this tool is much more lightweight. That’s something Adobe suffers from and perhaps why many of us have switched to different text editors. One reason why I disagree with this sort of product, which was also stated above, is that designers should learn to code. Especially with CSS and HTML. I think it only leads to being more creative and knowing limitations.
> designers should learn to code
What sets a real web dev apart from someone who uses wordpress.com and claims they are a web pro?
The ability to write their own code and not be restricted by templates.
To me these programs don’t give enough freedom of movement. they are cool toys, but for now they are just toys.
> designers should learn to code.
Designers should know a bit about how code works, but as soon as they actually know how to code themselves, they inevitably will. Before long, they’ll come up with a design and then say “No need to pass this to a coder, I can code this myself since we’re really in a hurry!” Ugh.
>designers should learn to code
Agreed, professional designers should…..casual users probably not so much.
We don’t know the target market for this product (and Adobe’s) but I suspect that “we the professionals (or seriously interested amateurs)” aren’t it.
I think it’s worth remembering that Adobe’s Edge offerings (I think that’s the collective term) are experimental so they can see how well they operate on their own and each other so they can, perhaps, bundle them all into a single product.
Then again, as I suggested, they may finalise them and release them individually.
If Adobe decided to sell Brackets at a similar price as Sublime Text, I think ST could see some serious competition.
> Designers should know a bit about how code works, but as soon as they actually know how to code themselves, they inevitably will. Before long, they’ll come up with a design and then say “No need to pass this to a coder, I can code this myself since we’re really in a hurry!” Ugh.
And to know how code works you need to write it. Learn it. Understand the restrictions and possibilities. Your hypothetical won’t hold true to every project. This is what distinguishes professionals from amateurs.
Ideally, yes. In a perfect world, it would be great if designers know all the restrictions of coding, and create their design with those restrictions in mind.
They’ll know the restrictions of coding if they know how to code. And if they know how to code, they will end up coding. It’s that last part I’m having problems with. Much too often I see designers do some coding, because they (or project managers, etc.) think they know enough about it.
This is exactly what distinguishes professionals from amateurs: I’d rather have a great coder (ie. professional) do code, than a designer-who-knows-code (ie. amateur).
Of course, that hypothetical won’t hold true to every project. But in my experience, it has happened far too often.
(Same for back end developers thinking they know enough about front end development — they should know some, but not enough to get the illusion they can do it themselves. Tables galore in 2013, it happens!)
> And if they know how to code, they will end up coding. It’s that last part I’m having problems with. – @senff
What’s wrong with someone learning to code? It seems you’re more worried about the market being overrun with amateurs. Professionals know how to distinguish between the two. That is what is important.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
*May or may not contain any actual "CSS" or "Tricks".