Need Free HTML Editor

[Thanee]

Trying to build a non-trivial web project without a WYSWYG editor is an exercise in futility.

I respectfully disagree.

You definitely need to view the site in some fashion (open it in the browser and reload, reload, reload ), but there is just more precision in sourcecode editing than a WYSIWYG editor can provide IMHO.

Bye
Thanee

 

[annadobritt]

I respectfully disagree.

You definitely need to view the site in some fashion (open it in the browser and reload, reload, reload ), but there is just more precision in sourcecode editing than a WYSIWYG editor can provide IMHO.

Bye
Thanee

Heh. My poor brain needs all the help it can get. Trying to remember all the various code for a web page would drive me nuts. I've tested out CoffeeCup Free HTML Editor and Nvu. I find CoffeeCup Free HTML the easier to use.

Thanks all for your help with this. It's much appreciated.

 

[Mercule]

The web designer in Visual Web Developer Express Edition isn't half bad.

That's what I use for my HTML pages. Of course, I actually use the full Visual Studio because I mostly code ASP.NET/C#, but I've been generally happy with it as a tool.

Then again, like Thanee, I prefer to look at the HTML, rather than the WYSIWYG. I even code ASP.NET by markup.

you can get a 60-day free trial of Expression Web at http://www.microsoft.com/expression/products/download.aspx?key=web.

Has anyone used this tool? I keep seeing mentions of it various places, but I haven't seen any good demos are talked to anyone using it. (sorry for the hijack)

But seriously, if you want this for anything other than a pure hobby project, spend the money and get DreamWeaver.

Surely, you jest. I can't imagine anyone using DreamWeaver on purpose. Most people I've talked to are happy to get away from that tool ASAP.

If someone was looking at going professional, I'd steer them towards Visual Web Developer or KompoZer (I haven't used it, but it looks full-featured). I don't use Eclipse (at http://www.eclipse.org/), but I wouldn't be surprised if it had an HTML module as part of the IDE.

 

[Asmor]

I respectfully disagree.

You definitely need to view the site in some fashion (open it in the browser and reload, reload, reload ), but there is just more precision in sourcecode editing than a WYSIWYG editor can provide IMHO.

Bye
Thanee

Agreed. A text editor is the only true HTML editor. WYSIWYG is just... bad. They universally produce bloated, illegible files that are absolute hell, and you're going to need to dig into them at some point because a WYSIWYG editor just can't do everything you need to do.

I recommend Notepad++, a free text editor available for Windows with lots of advanced features, like macros, code folding, and syntax highlighting for pretty much every language you'd ever want.

 

[drothgery]

I just don't get the metality that has serious developers eschewing WYSWYG editors. Do you guys write office documents in Emacs and mark them up by hand for LaTex instead of just using Word? Manually edit the compressed PostScript behind PDF files? Actually do non-HTML GUI layout by hand? It's a replay of the Visual Basic-is-evil nonsense in the web space, and it doesn't make any more sense.

 

[Relique du Madde]

I just don't get the metality that has serious developers eschewing WYSWYG editors. Do you guys write office documents in Emacs and mark them up by hand for LaTex instead of just using Word? Manually edit the compressed PostScript behind PDF files? Actually do non-HTML GUI layout by hand? It's a replay of the Visual Basic-is-evil nonsense in the web space, and it doesn't make any more sense.

Thats because serious web developers learn CSS and use that to position everything on the page instead of relying on those evil tables which WYSWYG programs love to create. Sadly, as long as WYSWYG relies on creating tables to positioning everything, they are useless for layout*.




*Useless in the respect that table tend to expand or shrink depending on browser as well as the fact that they make updating content a hassle.

 

[IronWolf]

I just don't get the metality that has serious developers eschewing WYSWYG editors.

I think Asmor already summed it up best. Bloated files and files that at some point you will need to get into because WYG is not WYS. Some are greater offenders than others of course.

Do you guys write office documents in Emacs and mark them up by hand for LaTex instead of just using Word?

Vi actually. or Notepad++.

It's a replay of the Visual Basic-is-evil nonsense in the web space

VB is evil.

 

[drothgery]

Thats because serious web developers learn CSS and use that to position everything on the page instead of relying on those evil tables which WYSWYG programs love to create. Sadly, as long as WYSWYG relies on creating tables to positioning everything, they are useless for layout*.

I like tables. Tables work reliably when most of what's going into them comes out of a server control. Pure-CSS layouts have a very bad habit of breaking down easily and in unexpected ways.

 

[Erystelle]

Can anyone recommend a good free html editor?

Thanks!

NvU http://www.nvu.com/

It's free, open source, and user-friendly.

 

[Asmor]

VB is evil.

I find VB confusing to look at... It just seems so unordered in my eyes (largely, I suspect, because it doesn't use curly braces and such). I expect that, if I do get into Python, I'll have similar problems. But I digress.

Ultimately, WYSIWYG isn't totally useless for everything... Like anything else, there are no absolute answers for what's best and what's isn't. However, there are some very compelling reasons to avoid WYSIWYG editors.

1: As mentioned, what you get is not what you see. If you're doing a layout that needs to be pixel-perfect... well, first, check and see if you really do need a layout that's pixel perfect. Chances are you don't. But if you do, a WYSIWYG editor just won't work for you.

2: Limited capabilities. Unless you're making an incredibly simple, static page, you're going to want to do something that you can't do.

3: They produce code which is not very portable. If you ever have to take over someone's code, or someone has to take over yours, you better hope you're using the exact same version of the exact same software with the exact same settings.

4: They produce ugly, unmanageable code. As mentioned previously, you are going to have to have to get into the code at some point, and it's not going to be pleasant. Poorly structured, random whitespace, redundant tags...

5: HTML is easy! CSS isn't much more difficult! You can probably learn the basics of the two in 10 minutes without ever having looked at a line of code in your life and you'll be ready to start! With just simple HTML and CSS you can play around and finesse out what you're looking for with more control and more easily than with a WYSIWYG editor.

The fact is, there's no right answer for everyone, and just because most people do something doesn't mean that that's the best way to do it. But I feel quite strongly that WYSIWYG editors are just a bad idea.