Michael Simcich
|
| Posted: 02/20/2001, 2:12 PM |
|
CodeCharge looks pretty interesting. I've not tried it out yet, as I'm
quite busy and the 20 day window could pass me by before I'd really
gotten adequate exposure. But I do have a question for you - about post
code generation editing.
As far as I can tell, the page design (html etc) is handled in cc via a
template engine. That's cool. But I also get the impression that cc
isn't really set up for wysiwyg page design ala Dreamweaver or FP. And
thus it's expected that one would tweak the generated html by hand or
via DW or whatever. My concern is that if there is any substantial
amount of customization of the cc generated html, republishing could be
considered a bit of a bummer.
I think CC creates it's html output as a separate operation, distinct
from the server side stuff. I'm guessing that this output division is
what makes it workable. Can someone from CodeCharge and/or some users
comment on this?
Thanks
--
Michael Simcich
AccessTools
|
|
|
 |
Michael Weaver
|
| Posted: 02/20/2001, 4:51 PM |
|
I had the same concerns. But for me, it all came down to these question: 1)
how valuable is my time, and 2) will CodeCharge add value to my services
and/or speed up development time. As a small business, time is everything,
and I found that CC adds value and speeds up our development time. Of
course, that's me. Personally, I think the product is a steal.
CC creates HTML templates in the same operation that it creates the code.
Will it create HTML that is pleasing to the eye? Not in my opinion. But for
most of the projects I work on, I couldn't use the generated HTML anyway.
What's important is that is generates relatively clean HTML that I can cut
and paste into my own custom template. In that respect it is very easy to
use. I look at CC as a utility that has it's own use, just as Dreamweaver
and Photoshop have their own uses. And it has incredible potential.
I prefer to edit the code using homesite, but I have tried out the templates
in Dreamweaver and I haven't had any difficulties. I don't trust Frontpage,
but in theory there shouldn't be any problems. No matter what, you just have
to be prepared for plenty of comments (which is a good thing), code that
won't necessarily show up on your live page (such as "next" & "previous" for
long lists), and placemarkers (such as {header} & {footer}).
As for republishing, I guess the only thing I could tell you is to
meticulously plan the site out in advance. You have to plan for your current
needs and for your future ones too. This isn't an end-all be-all product.
However, I've found that if you move all of your templates into a separate
directory then there's little chance of them being deleted, which makes it
easier when you make changes. After regenerating the site, all you have to
do is change one line in your code, for instance (this is php):
Change
$tpl->load_file("edit.html", "main");
to
$tpl->load_file("templates/edit.html", "main");
That way it will work with your custom template. If you add another form or
additional functionality then you just have to add the updated HTML into
your custom template.
Of course as long as there are substantial changes, there will always be
substantial work. That's just the nature of the beast.
The 20 day trial is unorthodox, and I had some problems with using the
program at first. But I discovered they NOT CC's fault, but my own
(incorrect installations, incorrect permissions, conf file edits, etc.).
When I actually got to use the program and saw how powerful it is, I didn't
wait for the trial to end - I bought it immediately.
Hope this helps!
michael
|
|
|
|
Michael Simcich
|
| Posted: 02/20/2001, 5:54 PM |
|
Yes, thanks, that's a very helpful response. Your way of dealing with
CC's approach sounds pretty manageable, and I'd like to hear from others
(and the creators) if that's more or less what everyone is doing. I
imagine that there is an "art" to using this tool, as there is for every
other tool out there. In this case, the art of CodeCharge is probably
less well defined than the other tools, but that what you expect with a
new tool.
The 20 day thing is kind of a barrier; but the price tag is very fair if
it ends up being useful at all. I'll just wait till I can snag some time
to play with it and give it a whirl.
I'm also curious - you are probably familiar with DW and now UltraDev?
*IF* UD did PHP do you think CC would still be important to you? UD and
CC are taking different approaches but they're not entirely unrelated
either.
--
Michael Simcich
AccessTools
In article <96v3e6$3l5$1@news.codecharge.com>,michaelw@sc.rr.com says...
> I had the same concerns. But for me, it all came down to these question: 1)
> how valuable is my time, and 2) will CodeCharge add value to my services
> and/or speed up development time. As a small business, time is everything,
> and I found that CC adds value and speeds up our development time. Of
> course, that's me. Personally, I think the product is a steal.
>
> CC creates HTML templates in the same operation that it creates the code.
> Will it create HTML that is pleasing to the eye? Not in my opinion. But for
> most of the projects I work on, I couldn't use the generated HTML anyway.
> What's important is that is generates relatively clean HTML that I can cut
> and paste into my own custom template. In that respect it is very easy to
> use. I look at CC as a utility that has it's own use, just as Dreamweaver
> and Photoshop have their own uses. And it has incredible potential.
>
> I prefer to edit the code using homesite, but I have tried out the templates
> in Dreamweaver and I haven't had any difficulties. I don't trust Frontpage,
> but in theory there shouldn't be any problems. No matter what, you just have
> to be prepared for plenty of comments (which is a good thing), code that
> won't necessarily show up on your live page (such as "next" & "previous" for
> long lists), and placemarkers (such as {header} & {footer}).
>
> As for republishing, I guess the only thing I could tell you is to
> meticulously plan the site out in advance. You have to plan for your current
> needs and for your future ones too. This isn't an end-all be-all product.
> However, I've found that if you move all of your templates into a separate
> directory then there's little chance of them being deleted, which makes it
> easier when you make changes. After regenerating the site, all you have to
> do is change one line in your code, for instance (this is php):
>
> Change
>
> $tpl->load_file("edit.html", "main");
>
> to
>
> $tpl->load_file("templates/edit.html", "main");
>
> That way it will work with your custom template. If you add another form or
> additional functionality then you just have to add the updated HTML into
> your custom template.
>
> Of course as long as there are substantial changes, there will always be
> substantial work. That's just the nature of the beast.
>
> The 20 day trial is unorthodox, and I had some problems with using the
> program at first. But I discovered they NOT CC's fault, but my own
> (incorrect installations, incorrect permissions, conf file edits, etc.).
> When I actually got to use the program and saw how powerful it is, I didn't
> wait for the trial to end - I bought it immediately.
>
|
|
|
|
Joachim Uersfeld
|
| Posted: 02/20/2001, 11:58 PM |
|
Design the most of your CC generated program with html-code in
Pages/Head/Footer and with CSS-Includes, so you don't need to made (large)
handy changes. in the Codecharge generated Html-Files.
Joachim
"Michael Simcich" <msimcich@accesstools.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.14fc8bd52f1a8cf0989680@news.codecharge.com...
> CodeCharge looks pretty interesting. I've not tried it out yet, as I'm
> quite busy and the 20 day window could pass me by before I'd really
> gotten adequate exposure. But I do have a question for you - about post
> code generation editing.
>
> As far as I can tell, the page design (html etc) is handled in cc via a
> template engine. That's cool. But I also get the impression that cc
> isn't really set up for wysiwyg page design ala Dreamweaver or FP. And
> thus it's expected that one would tweak the generated html by hand or
> via DW or whatever. My concern is that if there is any substantial
> amount of customization of the cc generated html, republishing could be
> considered a bit of a bummer.
>
> I think CC creates it's html output as a separate operation, distinct
> from the server side stuff. I'm guessing that this output division is
> what makes it workable. Can someone from CodeCharge and/or some users
> comment on this?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Michael Simcich
> AccessTools
|
|
|
|
Michael Weaver
|
| Posted: 02/21/2001, 6:31 AM |
|
I haven't used Ultradev for database integration yet, but I have looked over
the features and it seems like a good product. Also, if Ultradev did PHP I
probably wouldn't have found CodeCharge at all. But it doesn't do PHP, and
it won't unless they make an extension, which I doubt they will anytime
soon. I don't know how well it integrates with DW or how easy it is to use,
really.
CodeCharge is a little rough around the edges but I like it.
michael
"Michael Simcich" <msimcich@accesstools.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14fcbfe0ecda636e989681@news.codecharge.com...
> Yes, thanks, that's a very helpful response. Your way of dealing with
> CC's approach sounds pretty manageable, and I'd like to hear from others
> (and the creators) if that's more or less what everyone is doing. I
> imagine that there is an "art" to using this tool, as there is for every
> other tool out there. In this case, the art of CodeCharge is probably
> less well defined than the other tools, but that what you expect with a
> new tool.
>
> The 20 day thing is kind of a barrier; but the price tag is very fair if
> it ends up being useful at all. I'll just wait till I can snag some time
> to play with it and give it a whirl.
>
> I'm also curious - you are probably familiar with DW and now UltraDev?
> *IF* UD did PHP do you think CC would still be important to you? UD and
> CC are taking different approaches but they're not entirely unrelated
> either.
>
> --
> Michael Simcich
> AccessTools
>
> In article <96v3e6$3l5$1@news.codecharge.com>,michaelw@sc.rr.com says...
> > I had the same concerns. But for me, it all came down to these question:
1)
> > how valuable is my time, and 2) will CodeCharge add value to my services
> > and/or speed up development time. As a small business, time is
everything,
> > and I found that CC adds value and speeds up our development time. Of
> > course, that's me. Personally, I think the product is a steal.
> >
> > CC creates HTML templates in the same operation that it creates the
code.
> > Will it create HTML that is pleasing to the eye? Not in my opinion. But
for
> > most of the projects I work on, I couldn't use the generated HTML
anyway.
> > What's important is that is generates relatively clean HTML that I can
cut
> > and paste into my own custom template. In that respect it is very easy
to
> > use. I look at CC as a utility that has it's own use, just as
Dreamweaver
> > and Photoshop have their own uses. And it has incredible potential.
> >
> > I prefer to edit the code using homesite, but I have tried out the
templates
> > in Dreamweaver and I haven't had any difficulties. I don't trust
Frontpage,
> > but in theory there shouldn't be any problems. No matter what, you just
have
> > to be prepared for plenty of comments (which is a good thing), code that
> > won't necessarily show up on your live page (such as "next" & "previous"
for
> > long lists), and placemarkers (such as {header} & {footer}).
> >
> > As for republishing, I guess the only thing I could tell you is to
> > meticulously plan the site out in advance. You have to plan for your
current
> > needs and for your future ones too. This isn't an end-all be-all
product.
> > However, I've found that if you move all of your templates into a
separate
> > directory then there's little chance of them being deleted, which makes
it
> > easier when you make changes. After regenerating the site, all you have
to
> > do is change one line in your code, for instance (this is php):
> >
> > Change
> >
> > $tpl->load_file("edit.html", "main");
> >
> > to
> >
> > $tpl->load_file("templates/edit.html", "main");
> >
> > That way it will work with your custom template. If you add another form
or
> > additional functionality then you just have to add the updated HTML into
> > your custom template.
> >
> > Of course as long as there are substantial changes, there will always be
> > substantial work. That's just the nature of the beast.
> >
> > The 20 day trial is unorthodox, and I had some problems with using the
> > program at first. But I discovered they NOT CC's fault, but my own
> > (incorrect installations, incorrect permissions, conf file edits, etc.).
> > When I actually got to use the program and saw how powerful it is, I
didn't
> > wait for the trial to end - I bought it immediately.
> >
|
|
|
|
CodeCharge
|
| Posted: 02/22/2001, 12:20 AM |
|
Michael,
Neither CodeCharge nor any other tool in this space allow for easy
republishing.
Consider UltraDev:
a) You can use its wizard to create the initial set of pages, but then
you're basically on your own and can't reuse the wizard again to simplify
related tasks. The rest of the process is little more complex.
b) If you modify the code outside of UltraDev, you may not be able to
republish it.
It all comes down to being able to create enough content and generate enough
features within the generator itself, so that you don't have to come back.
CodeCharge seems limited, but it actually is a large scale, sophisticated
wizard, which may be used to "setup" many components and features before
moving onto the next step - manual improvements, adding business logic, etc.
Here is how we use CodeCharge:
- in its simplest form, we use it as a 20 minute tool to generate
registration form, or a table displaying employees, etc., when otherwise
we'd have to create such a page manually.
- we use it as a 1 day tool to create Administration Section for the
database, for easy maintenance of items, categories, users, etc.
- we use it as a 2-3 day tool to create the framework of an extensive
website. Then we work on manually adding the business logic (emails,
encryption, complex searches, etc.) and enhancing the UI with DreamWeaver.
We continue using CodeCharge sporadically when we for example make major
changes to a page and it's easier to redo it than change it.
- we use it as a 1 week tool to create a task management/project
management/bug tracking system for our internal use, when the UI doesn't
have to be great, but with CodeCharge it is still better than some of the
free or inexpensive applications we can find.
Actually, our Bug Tracking system (created in 1 day) received over 2,000
downloads and won a contest at http://www.planet-source-code.com/ I bet
that many people don't even realize that it is a completely generated,
unimproved application 
Adam Stock
CodeCharge Support
"Michael Simcich" <msimcich@accesstools.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14fc8bd52f1a8cf0989680@news.codecharge.com...
> CodeCharge looks pretty interesting. I've not tried it out yet, as I'm
> quite busy and the 20 day window could pass me by before I'd really
> gotten adequate exposure. But I do have a question for you - about post
> code generation editing.
>
> As far as I can tell, the page design (html etc) is handled in cc via a
> template engine. That's cool. But I also get the impression that cc
> isn't really set up for wysiwyg page design ala Dreamweaver or FP. And
> thus it's expected that one would tweak the generated html by hand or
> via DW or whatever. My concern is that if there is any substantial
> amount of customization of the cc generated html, republishing could be
> considered a bit of a bummer.
>
> I think CC creates it's html output as a separate operation, distinct
> from the server side stuff. I'm guessing that this output division is
> what makes it workable. Can someone from CodeCharge and/or some users
> comment on this?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Michael Simcich
> AccessTools
|
|
|
|
Michael Simcich
|
| Posted: 02/22/2001, 3:28 AM |
|
Hi Adam
Those examples are very useful. I'll give it a try and see how practical
this workstyle is for me. I think I'd be concerned about losing previous
handmade mods; but it seems that this may just be the type of trade off
one inherits with this sort of generator tool. If one can work out a
methodology for regeneration, I'm sure it would be useful.
--
Michael Simcich
AccessTools
In article <972i4g$g9k$1@news.codecharge.com>,support@codecharge.com
says...
> Michael,
>
> Neither CodeCharge nor any other tool in this space allow for easy
> republishing.
> Consider UltraDev:
> a) You can use its wizard to create the initial set of pages, but then
> you're basically on your own and can't reuse the wizard again to simplify
> related tasks. The rest of the process is little more complex.
> b) If you modify the code outside of UltraDev, you may not be able to
> republish it.
>
> It all comes down to being able to create enough content and generate enough
> features within the generator itself, so that you don't have to come back.
> CodeCharge seems limited, but it actually is a large scale, sophisticated
> wizard, which may be used to "setup" many components and features before
> moving onto the next step - manual improvements, adding business logic, etc.
>
> Here is how we use CodeCharge:
> - in its simplest form, we use it as a 20 minute tool to generate
> registration form, or a table displaying employees, etc., when otherwise
> we'd have to create such a page manually.
> - we use it as a 1 day tool to create Administration Section for the
> database, for easy maintenance of items, categories, users, etc.
> - we use it as a 2-3 day tool to create the framework of an extensive
> website. Then we work on manually adding the business logic (emails,
> encryption, complex searches, etc.) and enhancing the UI with DreamWeaver.
> We continue using CodeCharge sporadically when we for example make major
> changes to a page and it's easier to redo it than change it.
> - we use it as a 1 week tool to create a task management/project
> management/bug tracking system for our internal use, when the UI doesn't
> have to be great, but with CodeCharge it is still better than some of the
> free or inexpensive applications we can find.
> Actually, our Bug Tracking system (created in 1 day) received over 2,000
> downloads and won a contest at http://www.planet-source-code.com/ I bet
> that many people don't even realize that it is a completely generated,
> unimproved application
>
> Adam Stock
> CodeCharge Support
|
|
|
|
mhiles
|
| Posted: 03/15/2001, 2:40 PM |
|
As a practice, I already create versioning since I manage the site with
Visual Interdev. Ultradev is great for user interface design, and I have it
set as my default editor in MSVI. Visual Source Safe is a great version
control, but you have to own InterDev.
As a workaround for smaller projects, I have found that in the case where I
am working with a pre-existing template or HTML file, I rename the
CodeCharge template file to a .tmpl extension so that I can regenerate pages
without destroying the HTML template with my custom design.
Also, creating a backup folder for CodeCharge generation permits me stage
the workflow and then copy completed files into a production folder after
the test is complete. This requires some thought for site folder structure
and planning.
Michael Hiles
yodadago@yahoo.com
"Michael Simcich" <msimcich@accesstools.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14fe980710429456989682@news.codecharge.com...
> Hi Adam
>
> Those examples are very useful. I'll give it a try and see how practical
> this workstyle is for me. I think I'd be concerned about losing previous
> handmade mods; but it seems that this may just be the type of trade off
> one inherits with this sort of generator tool. If one can work out a
> methodology for regeneration, I'm sure it would be useful.
>
> --
> Michael Simcich
> AccessTools
>
> In article <972i4g$g9k$1@news.codecharge.com>,support@codecharge.com
> says...
> > Michael,
> >
> > Neither CodeCharge nor any other tool in this space allow for easy
> > republishing.
> > Consider UltraDev:
> > a) You can use its wizard to create the initial set of pages, but then
> > you're basically on your own and can't reuse the wizard again to
simplify
> > related tasks. The rest of the process is little more complex.
> > b) If you modify the code outside of UltraDev, you may not be able to
> > republish it.
> >
> > It all comes down to being able to create enough content and generate
enough
> > features within the generator itself, so that you don't have to come
back.
> > CodeCharge seems limited, but it actually is a large scale,
sophisticated
> > wizard, which may be used to "setup" many components and features before
> > moving onto the next step - manual improvements, adding business logic,
etc.
> >
> > Here is how we use CodeCharge:
> > - in its simplest form, we use it as a 20 minute tool to generate
> > registration form, or a table displaying employees, etc., when otherwise
> > we'd have to create such a page manually.
> > - we use it as a 1 day tool to create Administration Section for the
> > database, for easy maintenance of items, categories, users, etc.
> > - we use it as a 2-3 day tool to create the framework of an extensive
> > website. Then we work on manually adding the business logic (emails,
> > encryption, complex searches, etc.) and enhancing the UI with
DreamWeaver.
> > We continue using CodeCharge sporadically when we for example make major
> > changes to a page and it's easier to redo it than change it.
> > - we use it as a 1 week tool to create a task management/project
> > management/bug tracking system for our internal use, when the UI doesn't
> > have to be great, but with CodeCharge it is still better than some of
the
> > free or inexpensive applications we can find.
> > Actually, our Bug Tracking system (created in 1 day) received over 2,000
> > downloads and won a contest at http://www.planet-source-code.com/ I
bet
> > that many people don't even realize that it is a completely generated,
> > unimproved application
> >
> > Adam Stock
> > CodeCharge Support
|
|
|
|
Dr. Scott R. Senay
|
| Posted: 06/03/2001, 11:47 AM |
|
Hello Mike!
I'm doing ALL my work in CC and then hitting generate. After I've generated
my code I don't do ANY editing. I get everything done in Code Charge and am
VERY, VERY happy with the product. Take a look at a system that I'm still
working on but is doing what I want and need and looks pretty good too...
http://www.icebreakersDC.com ...this is a system for one of my customers and
when complete it will still be all in Code Charge. It is based around the
SVEC Portal example that comes with Code Charge.
Scott....
Michael Simcich <msimcich@accesstools.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14fc8bd52f1a8cf0989680@news.codecharge.com...
> CodeCharge looks pretty interesting. I've not tried it out yet, as I'm
> quite busy and the 20 day window could pass me by before I'd really
> gotten adequate exposure. But I do have a question for you - about post
> code generation editing.
>
> As far as I can tell, the page design (html etc) is handled in cc via a
> template engine. That's cool. But I also get the impression that cc
> isn't really set up for wysiwyg page design ala Dreamweaver or FP. And
> thus it's expected that one would tweak the generated html by hand or
> via DW or whatever. My concern is that if there is any substantial
> amount of customization of the cc generated html, republishing could be
> considered a bit of a bummer.
>
> I think CC creates it's html output as a separate operation, distinct
> from the server side stuff. I'm guessing that this output division is
> what makes it workable. Can someone from CodeCharge and/or some users
> comment on this?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Michael Simcich
> AccessTools
|
|
|
|
Roger
|
| Posted: 06/03/2001, 12:16 PM |
|
Hi Scott,
If you don't mind. How much did you charge for the icebreakerDC site?
--
Rgds
Roger Tng
"Dr. Scott R. Senay" <drsenay@conceptech.com> wrote in message
news:9fe0ob$id1$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> Hello Mike!
>
> I'm doing ALL my work in CC and then hitting generate. After I've
generated
> my code I don't do ANY editing. I get everything done in Code Charge and
am
> VERY, VERY happy with the product. Take a look at a system that I'm still
> working on but is doing what I want and need and looks pretty good too...
> http://www.icebreakersDC.com ...this is a system for one of my customers
and
> when complete it will still be all in Code Charge. It is based around the
> SVEC Portal example that comes with Code Charge.
>
> Scott....
>
>
>
>
> Michael Simcich <msimcich@accesstools.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.14fc8bd52f1a8cf0989680@news.codecharge.com...
> > CodeCharge looks pretty interesting. I've not tried it out yet, as I'm
> > quite busy and the 20 day window could pass me by before I'd really
> > gotten adequate exposure. But I do have a question for you - about post
> > code generation editing.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the page design (html etc) is handled in cc via a
> > template engine. That's cool. But I also get the impression that cc
> > isn't really set up for wysiwyg page design ala Dreamweaver or FP. And
> > thus it's expected that one would tweak the generated html by hand or
> > via DW or whatever. My concern is that if there is any substantial
> > amount of customization of the cc generated html, republishing could be
> > considered a bit of a bummer.
> >
> > I think CC creates it's html output as a separate operation, distinct
> > from the server side stuff. I'm guessing that this output division is
> > what makes it workable. Can someone from CodeCharge and/or some users
> > comment on this?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Michael Simcich
> > AccessTools
>
>
|
|
|
|
Dr. Scott R. Senay
|
| Posted: 06/14/2001, 12:47 AM |
|
If you ask my wife, not enough! Honestly I started out the relationship
simply doing hosting and setting up a temporary page. What started as a
temporary page blossomed into basically doing the whole thing for them. My
suggestion is that you should charge whatever your normal rate for your
clients would be, and allow any saved time to be a time savings for them,
but NOT less money for you. If a job is going to take six months using
anything other than CodeCharge for design, development, deployment and
suppport/training and WITH CodeCharge it is going to take one month you
should still factor somewhere around the six month time frame in terms of
numbers. Two reasons for this, one that's what everbody else will do, two
(and most importantly) it protects you from pricing yourself out of
business...
Scott...
"Roger" <roger@web4sme.net> wrote in message
news:9fe2e0$jhk$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> Hi Scott,
>
> If you don't mind. How much did you charge for the icebreakerDC site?
> --
> Rgds
> Roger Tng
>
> "Dr. Scott R. Senay" <drsenay@conceptech.com> wrote in message
>news:9fe0ob$id1$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> > Hello Mike!
> >
> > I'm doing ALL my work in CC and then hitting generate. After I've
> generated
> > my code I don't do ANY editing. I get everything done in Code Charge
and
> am
> > VERY, VERY happy with the product. Take a look at a system that I'm
still
> > working on but is doing what I want and need and looks pretty good
too...
> > http://www.icebreakersDC.com ...this is a system for one of my customers
> and
> > when complete it will still be all in Code Charge. It is based around
the
> > SVEC Portal example that comes with Code Charge.
> >
> > Scott....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Simcich <msimcich@accesstools.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.14fc8bd52f1a8cf0989680@news.codecharge.com...
> > > CodeCharge looks pretty interesting. I've not tried it out yet, as I'm
> > > quite busy and the 20 day window could pass me by before I'd really
> > > gotten adequate exposure. But I do have a question for you - about
post
> > > code generation editing.
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell, the page design (html etc) is handled in cc via
a
> > > template engine. That's cool. But I also get the impression that cc
> > > isn't really set up for wysiwyg page design ala Dreamweaver or FP. And
> > > thus it's expected that one would tweak the generated html by hand or
> > > via DW or whatever. My concern is that if there is any substantial
> > > amount of customization of the cc generated html, republishing could
be
> > > considered a bit of a bummer.
> > >
> > > I think CC creates it's html output as a separate operation, distinct
> > > from the server side stuff. I'm guessing that this output division is
> > > what makes it workable. Can someone from CodeCharge and/or some users
> > > comment on this?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Simcich
> > > AccessTools
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
Roger
|
| Posted: 06/14/2001, 11:27 AM |
|
Hi Scott,
I like your well put honest reply about the charges.
I see that you are trying to get off in the hosting business which is very
competitve.
I guess if you keep going at it you can corner your group of niche clients
and make it.
This is what I am doing in my part of the world.
--
Rgds
Roger Tng
"Dr. Scott R. Senay" <drsenay@conceptech.com> wrote in message
news:9g9q71$dl8$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> If you ask my wife, not enough! Honestly I started out the relationship
> simply doing hosting and setting up a temporary page. What started as a
> temporary page blossomed into basically doing the whole thing for them.
My
> suggestion is that you should charge whatever your normal rate for your
> clients would be, and allow any saved time to be a time savings for them,
> but NOT less money for you. If a job is going to take six months using
> anything other than CodeCharge for design, development, deployment and
> suppport/training and WITH CodeCharge it is going to take one month you
> should still factor somewhere around the six month time frame in terms of
> numbers. Two reasons for this, one that's what everbody else will do, two
> (and most importantly) it protects you from pricing yourself out of
> business...
>
> Scott...
>
> "Roger" <roger@web4sme.net> wrote in message
>news:9fe2e0$jhk$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > If you don't mind. How much did you charge for the icebreakerDC site?
> > --
> > Rgds
> > Roger Tng
> >
> > "Dr. Scott R. Senay" <drsenay@conceptech.com> wrote in message
> >news:9fe0ob$id1$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> > > Hello Mike!
> > >
> > > I'm doing ALL my work in CC and then hitting generate. After I've
> > generated
> > > my code I don't do ANY editing. I get everything done in Code Charge
> and
> > am
> > > VERY, VERY happy with the product. Take a look at a system that I'm
> still
> > > working on but is doing what I want and need and looks pretty good
> too...
> > > http://www.icebreakersDC.com ...this is a system for one of my
customers
> > and
> > > when complete it will still be all in Code Charge. It is based around
> the
> > > SVEC Portal example that comes with Code Charge.
> > >
> > > Scott....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael Simcich <msimcich@accesstools.com> wrote in message
> > >news:MPG.14fc8bd52f1a8cf0989680@news.codecharge.com...
> > > > CodeCharge looks pretty interesting. I've not tried it out yet, as
I'm
> > > > quite busy and the 20 day window could pass me by before I'd really
> > > > gotten adequate exposure. But I do have a question for you - about
> post
> > > > code generation editing.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can tell, the page design (html etc) is handled in cc
via
> a
> > > > template engine. That's cool. But I also get the impression that cc
> > > > isn't really set up for wysiwyg page design ala Dreamweaver or FP.
And
> > > > thus it's expected that one would tweak the generated html by hand
or
> > > > via DW or whatever. My concern is that if there is any substantial
> > > > amount of customization of the cc generated html, republishing could
> be
> > > > considered a bit of a bummer.
> > > >
> > > > I think CC creates it's html output as a separate operation,
distinct
> > > > from the server side stuff. I'm guessing that this output division
is
> > > > what makes it workable. Can someone from CodeCharge and/or some
users
> > > > comment on this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michael Simcich
> > > > AccessTools
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
Dr. Scott R. Senay
|
| Posted: 06/14/2001, 5:01 PM |
|
Sounds like a good plan! Work hard, charge decent fair prices that let you
live but don't hold the customers wallet ransom like the "Big guys do" and
you'll be in good shape! I LOVE CodeCharge because it lets be do fixed
price business that beats ANYONES time an materials numbers but still pays
me what I'm worth. For some clients (big ones like Ford, GMAC, Amex what
have you) I take out the 150+ and hour number, so it really depends... Mind
you I have a resume that goes back twenty years with lots of big names on it
and active references at some of these places so that I can get the above
150 per hour numbers... Mind you much of my work is below that, and some of
it is actually above that (My photography work goes at 200+ per hour) but
even there it includes some names (some of my portraits will be in next
months JavaPro magazine) like Fawcette Technical Publications and Wrox
Books... So that's about it... Work hard, provide honest value and keep
your customers happy and you'll never go hungry...
In the mean time if you have any questions or problems feel free to ask...
I don't promise I'll have an answer but I'll give it and honest look...
Sincerely,
Scott...
Roger <roger@web4sme.net> wrote in message
news:9gavme$jqa$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> Hi Scott,
> I like your well put honest reply about the charges.
> I see that you are trying to get off in the hosting business which is very
> competitve.
> I guess if you keep going at it you can corner your group of niche clients
> and make it.
> This is what I am doing in my part of the world.
> --
> Rgds
> Roger Tng
>
> "Dr. Scott R. Senay" <drsenay@conceptech.com> wrote in message
>news:9g9q71$dl8$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> > If you ask my wife, not enough! Honestly I started out the relationship
> > simply doing hosting and setting up a temporary page. What started as a
> > temporary page blossomed into basically doing the whole thing for them.
> My
> > suggestion is that you should charge whatever your normal rate for your
> > clients would be, and allow any saved time to be a time savings for
them,
> > but NOT less money for you. If a job is going to take six months using
> > anything other than CodeCharge for design, development, deployment and
> > suppport/training and WITH CodeCharge it is going to take one month you
> > should still factor somewhere around the six month time frame in terms
of
> > numbers. Two reasons for this, one that's what everbody else will do,
two
> > (and most importantly) it protects you from pricing yourself out of
> > business...
> >
> > Scott...
> >
> > "Roger" <roger@web4sme.net> wrote in message
> >news:9fe2e0$jhk$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> > > Hi Scott,
> > >
> > > If you don't mind. How much did you charge for the icebreakerDC site?
> > > --
> > > Rgds
> > > Roger Tng
> > >
> > > "Dr. Scott R. Senay" <drsenay@conceptech.com> wrote in message
> > >news:9fe0ob$id1$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> > > > Hello Mike!
> > > >
> > > > I'm doing ALL my work in CC and then hitting generate. After I've
> > > generated
> > > > my code I don't do ANY editing. I get everything done in Code
Charge
> > and
> > > am
> > > > VERY, VERY happy with the product. Take a look at a system that I'm
> > still
> > > > working on but is doing what I want and need and looks pretty good
> > too...
> > > > http://www.icebreakersDC.com ...this is a system for one of my
> customers
> > > and
> > > > when complete it will still be all in Code Charge. It is based
around
> > the
> > > > SVEC Portal example that comes with Code Charge.
> > > >
> > > > Scott....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael Simcich <msimcich@accesstools.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:MPG.14fc8bd52f1a8cf0989680@news.codecharge.com...
> > > > > CodeCharge looks pretty interesting. I've not tried it out yet, as
> I'm
> > > > > quite busy and the 20 day window could pass me by before I'd
really
> > > > > gotten adequate exposure. But I do have a question for you - about
> > post
> > > > > code generation editing.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I can tell, the page design (html etc) is handled in cc
> via
> > a
> > > > > template engine. That's cool. But I also get the impression that
cc
> > > > > isn't really set up for wysiwyg page design ala Dreamweaver or FP.
> And
> > > > > thus it's expected that one would tweak the generated html by hand
> or
> > > > > via DW or whatever. My concern is that if there is any substantial
> > > > > amount of customization of the cc generated html, republishing
could
> > be
> > > > > considered a bit of a bummer.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think CC creates it's html output as a separate operation,
> distinct
> > > > > from the server side stuff. I'm guessing that this output division
> is
> > > > > what makes it workable. Can someone from CodeCharge and/or some
> users
> > > > > comment on this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Michael Simcich
> > > > > AccessTools
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
