Paul
|
| Posted: 02/06/2001, 4:55 AM |
|
Just like to add my encouragement to wed CodeCharge to DreamWeaver. I to
dearly love DreamWeaver/UltraDev but mourn the fact that it does not do PHP.
Most of what I do is ASP but we also use LINUX and there are instances where
PHP/MYSql are used. This is what attracted me to CodeCharge. Though
CodeCharge does a very nice job of writing the basic interface code; I find
the need to do some extensive frontend massaging, and business logic
creation. This I prefer to do in DreamWeaver. I sure as heck wouldn't
think of doing it in FrontPage!
Paul
|
|
|
 |
CodeCharge
|
| Posted: 02/06/2001, 11:26 PM |
|
We obviously understand that generating PHP is to our advantage and we're
happy that CodeCharge proves helpful in this area.
However, our question should be - why wouldn't you use CodeCharge over
UltraDev to generate ASP code ?
For example, we as developers, weren't able to use UltraDev because
webmaster is forced to become the developer and vice-versa, the developer
becomes the webmaster. Additionally, UD's way of integrating the code with
HTML makes it difficult to ever get out of UD - the developers becomes tied
to a limiting tool.
In any case, we're aware of advantages on both sides, but are interested in
geeting feedback from the users. In other words, what would CodeCharge need
to do for you to use it for ASP development ? Is the integration with HTML
Design programs like Dreamweaver critical ? Or are there other features that
could be added to CodeCharge, which would make it more useful in ASP
development ?
Paul <paporter@visto.com> wrote in message
news:95os81$ehk$1@news.codecharge.com...
> Just like to add my encouragement to wed CodeCharge to DreamWeaver. I to
> dearly love DreamWeaver/UltraDev but mourn the fact that it does not do
PHP.
> Most of what I do is ASP but we also use LINUX and there are instances
where
> PHP/MYSql are used. This is what attracted me to CodeCharge. Though
> CodeCharge does a very nice job of writing the basic interface code; I
find
> the need to do some extensive frontend massaging, and business logic
> creation. This I prefer to do in DreamWeaver. I sure as heck wouldn't
> think of doing it in FrontPage!
>
> Paul
>
>
|
|
|
|
Roger
|
| Posted: 02/07/2001, 5:51 AM |
|
I guest it's not fair to request for UD over FrontPage because one happened
to dislike FP. There are still many FrontPage users and FrontPage will not
have support for PHP because ASP/ASP.Net is MS.
I can tell you one reason why I still use FrontPage2000 (not that I am not
capable to use DW/UD). It is because I do have customers that will want to
take over their sites and do some simple updates now & then. FP is simple,
easy to teach & cheaper than UD or DW.
If CC can bring the "Next Level Power" of web development and the ease of
implementing PHP over the FP way of ASP to the lower-end group of FrontPage
users that should drive up sales. Even the cheap NAMO4 has PHP/ASP.
As Macromedia had bought over Elementa and to merge with Allaire, their
priority may well has to be in ASP and CF.
Should CC start a forum on Wish List?
Can the CC site start a collection of frequently used PHP codes that can be
plug into CC. like on Event used in the Tell-a-Friend demo. This will help
some of us not so high end developers.
Just my 2 cents.
-----------------------
"CodeCharge" <support@codecharge.com> wrote in message
news:95qtbh$7oj$1@news.codecharge.com...
> We obviously understand that generating PHP is to our advantage and we're
> happy that CodeCharge proves helpful in this area.
> However, our question should be - why wouldn't you use CodeCharge over
> UltraDev to generate ASP code ?
> For example, we as developers, weren't able to use UltraDev because
> webmaster is forced to become the developer and vice-versa, the developer
> becomes the webmaster. Additionally, UD's way of integrating the code with
> HTML makes it difficult to ever get out of UD - the developers becomes
tied
> to a limiting tool.
> In any case, we're aware of advantages on both sides, but are interested
in
> geeting feedback from the users. In other words, what would CodeCharge
need
> to do for you to use it for ASP development ? Is the integration with HTML
> Design programs like Dreamweaver critical ? Or are there other features
that
> could be added to CodeCharge, which would make it more useful in ASP
> development ?
>
>
>
> Paul <paporter@visto.com> wrote in message
>news:95os81$ehk$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > Just like to add my encouragement to wed CodeCharge to DreamWeaver. I
to
> > dearly love DreamWeaver/UltraDev but mourn the fact that it does not do
> PHP.
> > Most of what I do is ASP but we also use LINUX and there are instances
> where
> > PHP/MYSql are used. This is what attracted me to CodeCharge. Though
> > CodeCharge does a very nice job of writing the basic interface code; I
> find
> > the need to do some extensive frontend massaging, and business logic
> > creation. This I prefer to do in DreamWeaver. I sure as heck wouldn't
> > think of doing it in FrontPage!
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey A. Stuart
|
| Posted: 02/07/2001, 7:18 AM |
|
As I mentioned in email, I personally don't do ASP work so... I don't care HOW CC chalks up
to Ultradev with ASP... LOL
My only point in all this was that if you are going to integrate CC with a WYSIWYG HTML
editor, I'd rather it be DW than FP.
In article <95qtbh$7oj$1@news.codecharge.com>,support@codecharge.com says...
> We obviously understand that generating PHP is to our advantage and we're
> happy that CodeCharge proves helpful in this area.
> However, our question should be - why wouldn't you use CodeCharge over
> UltraDev to generate ASP code ?
> For example, we as developers, weren't able to use UltraDev because
> webmaster is forced to become the developer and vice-versa, the developer
> becomes the webmaster. Additionally, UD's way of integrating the code with
> HTML makes it difficult to ever get out of UD - the developers becomes tied
> to a limiting tool.
> In any case, we're aware of advantages on both sides, but are interested in
> geeting feedback from the users. In other words, what would CodeCharge need
> to do for you to use it for ASP development ? Is the integration with HTML
> Design programs like Dreamweaver critical ? Or are there other features that
> could be added to CodeCharge, which would make it more useful in ASP
> development ?
>
>
>
> Paul <paporter@visto.com> wrote in message
>news:95os81$ehk$1@news.codecharge.com...
> > Just like to add my encouragement to wed CodeCharge to DreamWeaver. I to
> > dearly love DreamWeaver/UltraDev but mourn the fact that it does not do
> PHP.
> > Most of what I do is ASP but we also use LINUX and there are instances
> where
> > PHP/MYSql are used. This is what attracted me to CodeCharge. Though
> > CodeCharge does a very nice job of writing the basic interface code; I
> find
> > the need to do some extensive frontend massaging, and business logic
> > creation. This I prefer to do in DreamWeaver. I sure as heck wouldn't
> > think of doing it in FrontPage!
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Jeff (FurBall)
WebOverdrive Newbie Tech Board
http://www.topniche.com/tech/
furball@weboverdrive.com
|
|
|
|
Heictor Hsiao
|
| Posted: 02/08/2001, 12:58 AM |
|
I am using CC on my project with DW, I found this is supper when I need a
fast respond to my client. CC can't do the all works in one program, but it
help a lot on create the business logical, check the working flow and do
some demonstration to client without real hard work, by this way I won a lot
of jobs, because I can always use CC to demo the way we going to design in
short time, and client can always see the demo and use it, not just read the
hold dam project plan, and this is not just for web app, also helpful on
other win base program, I found this way cut down my cost on every project
communication, and makes the final work correct.
Heictor Hsiao
PS: can I have chance to make CC for Chinese version, and have dealership in
great china?
|
|
|
|
Michael Davidson
|
| Posted: 07/22/2002, 7:10 PM |
|
I would prefer integration with NetObjects Fusion over any other program. I
have heard that there was a beta kicking around and would love to see it
completed.
--
Michael Davidson
mailto:michaeldavidson@bigfoot.com
|
|
|
|
|
