JR
|
| Posted: 04/12/2003, 1:37 PM |
|
I have developed using MMUltradev 4 and am looking for a code generator with
features like CCS. I see many good reasons to buy it. Are there any good
reasons not to buy it?
Some of our projects will require fast database development on the PC with
finishing design using DWMX on the MAC. What pitfalls could we run into?
Any feedback is appreciated!
JR
|
|
|
 |
Gary
|
| Posted: 04/15/2003, 5:27 PM |
|
A lot of debugging and errors to the point that I'm starting to use MX to do
my Site admin sections
(which is all I'd ever use it for) 'cause you'll always want custom things
on a real site and in order to do it you have to learn another language
'CCS' which I simply don;t have the time for.
But I've now got a 3 customers waiting on a admin section which I can;t
deliver 'cause of a bug & Ive'
spent 8 to 16 hours per site extra just fixing things in a supposedly plain
wizad admin section.
Sounds good and I made the boss pay for it but after I blew about how
much time it would save the company but truth is I'm still
taking 2-3 days to get an Admin section out te door. Least in MX I could
blame myself for the cock-ups
I'm particulary pissed of tonight with CC cause its another
8 hours down the drain with nothing to show tomorrow.
Gary
"JR" <jruths@revelationdesign.com> wrote in message
news:b79teo$tif$1@news.codecharge.com...
> I have developed using MMUltradev 4 and am looking for a code generator
with
> features like CCS. I see many good reasons to buy it. Are there any good
> reasons not to buy it?
>
> Some of our projects will require fast database development on the PC with
> finishing design using DWMX on the MAC. What pitfalls could we run into?
>
> Any feedback is appreciated!
>
> JR
>
>
|
|
|
|
Imran
|
| Posted: 04/16/2003, 10:54 AM |
|
I would suggest sticking with it. Unless you've been using Beta versions,
I've never encountered any 'significant' bugs (bugs that screwed the pooch
for me for a project), in the last 2 years I've been using it (first regular
codecharge then studio once it became available). Many large projects.
I do know that I could have 4 comprehensive administrative sites done in the
time it would take to do one decent one on Dreamweaver. I know because I've
used both. I actually still use DW, but only for visual concerns because the
WYSIWYG of DW is unbeatable by anything else thus far on the market.
....but that's just my personal experience...
"Gary" <gary@SPAMLESSgaelmart.com> wrote in message
news:b7i80l$m9n$1@news.codecharge.com...
> A lot of debugging and errors to the point that I'm starting to use MX to
do
> my Site admin sections
> (which is all I'd ever use it for) 'cause you'll always want custom
things
> on a real site and in order to do it you have to learn another language
> 'CCS' which I simply don;t have the time for.
> But I've now got a 3 customers waiting on a admin section which I can;t
> deliver 'cause of a bug & Ive'
> spent 8 to 16 hours per site extra just fixing things in a supposedly
plain
> wizad admin section.
> Sounds good and I made the boss pay for it but after I blew about how
> much time it would save the company but truth is I'm still
> taking 2-3 days to get an Admin section out te door. Least in MX I could
> blame myself for the cock-ups
> I'm particulary pissed of tonight with CC cause its another
> 8 hours down the drain with nothing to show tomorrow.
>
>
> Gary
>
>
> "JR" <jruths@revelationdesign.com> wrote in message
>news:b79teo$tif$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > I have developed using MMUltradev 4 and am looking for a code generator
> with
> > features like CCS. I see many good reasons to buy it. Are there any
good
> > reasons not to buy it?
> >
> > Some of our projects will require fast database development on the PC
with
> > finishing design using DWMX on the MAC. What pitfalls could we run
into?
> >
> > Any feedback is appreciated!
> >
> > JR
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
Kevin
|
| Posted: 04/16/2003, 2:29 PM |
|
The problems Gary speaks of are common, we have 30 or so sites and everyone
of them are in the process of being rebuilt, for free. Now let me explain
"for free", I spend my spare time and weekends fixing something that wasn't
broken because a tool maker provided no means to migrate to the 'less'
buggie version of their tool. I expected to be working on add-in widgets for
CCS by now, not spending my spare time updating and regression testing
projects that have been paid for so we can perform basic maintence. You may
be able to generate several sites in the time of doing one with DW (I've
been using PEAR with DW and it is FAST) but when you have to remove every
event and calendar from every page then re-generate the site and then add
all your events and calendars back in with each update CCS throws over the
wall it gets old. Why not just stick with a version? Because the product
throws an exceptions and dissappears and they keep saying they have got it
fixed!
"Imran" <imranz@knight-images.com> wrote in message
news:b7k5ca$3bo$1@news.codecharge.com...
> I would suggest sticking with it. Unless you've been using Beta versions,
> I've never encountered any 'significant' bugs (bugs that screwed the pooch
> for me for a project), in the last 2 years I've been using it (first
regular
> codecharge then studio once it became available). Many large projects.
>
> I do know that I could have 4 comprehensive administrative sites done in
the
> time it would take to do one decent one on Dreamweaver. I know because
I've
> used both. I actually still use DW, but only for visual concerns because
the
> WYSIWYG of DW is unbeatable by anything else thus far on the market.
>
> ...but that's just my personal experience...
>
>
> "Gary" <gary@SPAMLESSgaelmart.com> wrote in message
>news:b7i80l$m9n$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > A lot of debugging and errors to the point that I'm starting to use MX
to
> do
> > my Site admin sections
> > (which is all I'd ever use it for) 'cause you'll always want custom
> things
> > on a real site and in order to do it you have to learn another language
> > 'CCS' which I simply don;t have the time for.
> > But I've now got a 3 customers waiting on a admin section which I can;t
> > deliver 'cause of a bug & Ive'
> > spent 8 to 16 hours per site extra just fixing things in a supposedly
> plain
> > wizad admin section.
> > Sounds good and I made the boss pay for it but after I blew about how
> > much time it would save the company but truth is I'm still
> > taking 2-3 days to get an Admin section out te door. Least in MX I could
> > blame myself for the cock-ups
> > I'm particulary pissed of tonight with CC cause its another
> > 8 hours down the drain with nothing to show tomorrow.
> >
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> > "JR" <jruths@revelationdesign.com> wrote in message
> >news:b79teo$tif$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > > I have developed using MMUltradev 4 and am looking for a code
generator
> > with
> > > features like CCS. I see many good reasons to buy it. Are there any
> good
> > > reasons not to buy it?
> > >
> > > Some of our projects will require fast database development on the PC
> with
> > > finishing design using DWMX on the MAC. What pitfalls could we run
> into?
> > >
> > > Any feedback is appreciated!
> > >
> > > JR
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
Robert Rodgers
|
| Posted: 04/17/2003, 8:43 AM |
|
Kevin, et al.,
ASP/MSSQL2k
I have upgraded several deployed sites and didn't have the problem of
loosing the event code. Can you give a better description? As far as the
calendar control goes... It wasn't that big of deal, Yes should have
provided a conversion facility but didn't. After looking a bit I saw that
the 1.xxx version of the calendar java function had a different interface
than the 2.xxx version. Making the 2.xxx calendars work with a project that
was built using 1.xx was just a matter of deleting some arguments on the
function call in the event handler. The other problem I ran into was that
the datasource button in the properties for many items didn't work. I made
that work again simply by reselecting the connection from the drop list (for
the grid, form or ....) and then everything was golden and off I went.
rob
--
"The average person thinks he isn't."
Larry Lorenzoni
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kevin" <kangus@acats.com> wrote in message
news:b7ki07$hj$1@news.codecharge.com...
> The problems Gary speaks of are common, we have 30 or so sites and
everyone
> of them are in the process of being rebuilt, for free. Now let me explain
> "for free", I spend my spare time and weekends fixing something that
wasn't
> broken because a tool maker provided no means to migrate to the 'less'
> buggie version of their tool. I expected to be working on add-in widgets
for
> CCS by now, not spending my spare time updating and regression testing
> projects that have been paid for so we can perform basic maintence. You
may
> be able to generate several sites in the time of doing one with DW (I've
> been using PEAR with DW and it is FAST) but when you have to remove every
> event and calendar from every page then re-generate the site and then add
> all your events and calendars back in with each update CCS throws over the
> wall it gets old. Why not just stick with a version? Because the product
> throws an exceptions and dissappears and they keep saying they have got it
> fixed!
>
> "Imran" <imranz@knight-images.com> wrote in message
>news:b7k5ca$3bo$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > I would suggest sticking with it. Unless you've been using Beta
versions,
> > I've never encountered any 'significant' bugs (bugs that screwed the
pooch
> > for me for a project), in the last 2 years I've been using it (first
> regular
> > codecharge then studio once it became available). Many large projects.
> >
> > I do know that I could have 4 comprehensive administrative sites done in
> the
> > time it would take to do one decent one on Dreamweaver. I know because
> I've
> > used both. I actually still use DW, but only for visual concerns because
> the
> > WYSIWYG of DW is unbeatable by anything else thus far on the market.
> >
> > ...but that's just my personal experience...
> >
> >
> > "Gary" <gary@SPAMLESSgaelmart.com> wrote in message
> >news:b7i80l$m9n$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > > A lot of debugging and errors to the point that I'm starting to use MX
> to
> > do
> > > my Site admin sections
> > > (which is all I'd ever use it for) 'cause you'll always want custom
> > things
> > > on a real site and in order to do it you have to learn another
language
> > > 'CCS' which I simply don;t have the time for.
> > > But I've now got a 3 customers waiting on a admin section which I
can;t
> > > deliver 'cause of a bug & Ive'
> > > spent 8 to 16 hours per site extra just fixing things in a supposedly
> > plain
> > > wizad admin section.
> > > Sounds good and I made the boss pay for it but after I blew about how
> > > much time it would save the company but truth is I'm still
> > > taking 2-3 days to get an Admin section out te door. Least in MX I
could
> > > blame myself for the cock-ups
> > > I'm particulary pissed of tonight with CC cause its another
> > > 8 hours down the drain with nothing to show tomorrow.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > > "JR" <jruths@revelationdesign.com> wrote in message
> > >news:b79teo$tif$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > > > I have developed using MMUltradev 4 and am looking for a code
> generator
> > > with
> > > > features like CCS. I see many good reasons to buy it. Are there any
> > good
> > > > reasons not to buy it?
> > > >
> > > > Some of our projects will require fast database development on the
PC
> > with
> > > > finishing design using DWMX on the MAC. What pitfalls could we run
> > into?
> > > >
> > > > Any feedback is appreciated!
> > > >
> > > > JR
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
Imran
|
| Posted: 04/18/2003, 1:55 PM |
|
Every non-beta version they've thrown over the wall has worked very well for
me. Some tend to jump on the beta bandwagon really quickly, and that comes
with a risk. I'm just not one of those risk takers.
"Kevin" <kangus@acats.com> wrote in message
news:b7ki07$hj$1@news.codecharge.com...
> The problems Gary speaks of are common, we have 30 or so sites and
everyone
> of them are in the process of being rebuilt, for free. Now let me explain
> "for free", I spend my spare time and weekends fixing something that
wasn't
> broken because a tool maker provided no means to migrate to the 'less'
> buggie version of their tool. I expected to be working on add-in widgets
for
> CCS by now, not spending my spare time updating and regression testing
> projects that have been paid for so we can perform basic maintence. You
may
> be able to generate several sites in the time of doing one with DW (I've
> been using PEAR with DW and it is FAST) but when you have to remove every
> event and calendar from every page then re-generate the site and then add
> all your events and calendars back in with each update CCS throws over the
> wall it gets old. Why not just stick with a version? Because the product
> throws an exceptions and dissappears and they keep saying they have got it
> fixed!
>
> "Imran" <imranz@knight-images.com> wrote in message
>news:b7k5ca$3bo$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > I would suggest sticking with it. Unless you've been using Beta
versions,
> > I've never encountered any 'significant' bugs (bugs that screwed the
pooch
> > for me for a project), in the last 2 years I've been using it (first
> regular
> > codecharge then studio once it became available). Many large projects.
> >
> > I do know that I could have 4 comprehensive administrative sites done in
> the
> > time it would take to do one decent one on Dreamweaver. I know because
> I've
> > used both. I actually still use DW, but only for visual concerns because
> the
> > WYSIWYG of DW is unbeatable by anything else thus far on the market.
> >
> > ...but that's just my personal experience...
> >
> >
> > "Gary" <gary@SPAMLESSgaelmart.com> wrote in message
> >news:b7i80l$m9n$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > > A lot of debugging and errors to the point that I'm starting to use MX
> to
> > do
> > > my Site admin sections
> > > (which is all I'd ever use it for) 'cause you'll always want custom
> > things
> > > on a real site and in order to do it you have to learn another
language
> > > 'CCS' which I simply don;t have the time for.
> > > But I've now got a 3 customers waiting on a admin section which I
can;t
> > > deliver 'cause of a bug & Ive'
> > > spent 8 to 16 hours per site extra just fixing things in a supposedly
> > plain
> > > wizad admin section.
> > > Sounds good and I made the boss pay for it but after I blew about how
> > > much time it would save the company but truth is I'm still
> > > taking 2-3 days to get an Admin section out te door. Least in MX I
could
> > > blame myself for the cock-ups
> > > I'm particulary pissed of tonight with CC cause its another
> > > 8 hours down the drain with nothing to show tomorrow.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > > "JR" <jruths@revelationdesign.com> wrote in message
> > >news:b79teo$tif$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > > > I have developed using MMUltradev 4 and am looking for a code
> generator
> > > with
> > > > features like CCS. I see many good reasons to buy it. Are there any
> > good
> > > > reasons not to buy it?
> > > >
> > > > Some of our projects will require fast database development on the
PC
> > with
> > > > finishing design using DWMX on the MAC. What pitfalls could we run
> > into?
> > > >
> > > > Any feedback is appreciated!
> > > >
> > > > JR
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
Dave Rexel
|
| Posted: 04/21/2003, 3:15 PM |
|
::
While the price of CCS has been increased I would still buy it as it has
many time saving features which will quickly return the purchase prise.
However it does require good knowledge of OOP in your chosen language.
The present absence of a detailed reference (API?) for programming in-house
custom actions and plug-ins does hinder the acceptance of CCS in our
Dev-team.
We would buy a ten-pack of CCS tomorrow if this aspect was well developed::
having a repository of well used and ever updated OOP functions that we
include in our UD/MX sites ergo I have not been successful in getting my
team leaders to accept CCS code generator yet as our present UD/MX strategy
has enabled us to deploy and manage reasonably large sites with varying
levels of complexity.
However I have personally designed and published a few sites including my
own (http://www.rexdesign.com/ccs/default.php) with CC/CCS and can highly
recommend it.
Greetings
Dave
"JR" <jruths@revelationdesign.com> wrote in message
news:b79teo$tif$1@news.codecharge.com...
> I have developed using MMUltradev 4 and am looking for a code generator
with
> features like CCS. I see many good reasons to buy it. Are there any good
> reasons not to buy it?
>
> Some of our projects will require fast database development on the PC with
> finishing design using DWMX on the MAC. What pitfalls could we run into?
>
> Any feedback is appreciated!
>
> JR
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
