Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

http://muse.adobe.com/index.html

by josscrowcroft • 15 years ago

143 146 15 years ago

muse.adobe.com

alfiejohn_• 15 years ago

Bridge to Engine Room: We need more DIVs

jjm• 15 years ago

Cap'n, Engine Room here - We've diverted emergency DIVs to sensors, increasing noob sensing range. We'll need more add-ons if yer want mowr DIVs!

terinjokes• 15 years ago

I read this in my "Enterprise problem of the week" voice.

M1573RMU74710N• 15 years ago

My...only....regret...is that....I have......div-itis...

nfm• 15 years ago

That was worse than I prepared myself for!

Almost the entire page is duplicated within a `<!--[if lt IE 9]>` block...

antimora• 15 years ago

I was shocked too. I couldn't believe the commented section was that long.

mambodog• 15 years ago

This is a great example of following the letter of a standard, but not the spirit.

kysol• 15 years ago

580 . . . Need more . . .

<div id="yo-dawg"> <div id="i-put-div-in-your-div"> <div id="so-you-can-div-while-you-div">This site built in Muse (code name) by Adobe®</div> </div> </div>

pierreminik5• 15 years ago

Please, tell me this is Adobe trying to mock IE. It has to be, right? I mean, they've always sort of not valued source code, but this is beyond torturing it.

This is so inspirationally horrible someone spent hours remaking it, like it should've been: http://studentweb.infotech.monash.edu/~wlay/FIT1012/muse-dem....

InclinedPlane5• 15 years ago

Indeed. The inefficiency here is astounding, especially considering the relatively straightforward page layout involved.

Original: 1496 lines, 77.9kB

Your version: 104 lines, 4.75kB

I'd thought we'd progressed beyond the state of a decade ago where Dreamweaver or what-have-you would build you a cumbersome and baroque html splooge to match whatever you had done in the designer, but I guess we haven't advanced that far. Just goes to show you that front-end devs are still as necessary as ever I suppose.

josscrowcroft4• 15 years ago

As long as tools like Dreamweaver exist, there will be a need for good front-end developers to clean up the mess.

skrebbel3• 15 years ago

How about we've progressed to the state where HTML is the bytecode you don't want to see anyway, and designers can use modern tools to manipulate it? If the generated markup works, cross-browser and cross-platform (I don't know to what extent it does, but let's assume so), then what's the problem?

For many purposes, optimizing the HTML nerd out of the process is a much bigger win than a 20k download (don't forget gzip) is a loss.

I know this is going to get me downvotes, but I think the dogmatic "HTML shall be written by hand!!1" attitude all over this thread is just people clinging to the past.

waterhouse• 15 years ago

And how much is it compressed? Let's see...

  ~ $ curl -s 'http://studentweb.infotech.monash.edu/~wlay/FIT1012/muse-demo/' | gzip | wc -c
    1741
  ~ $ curl -s 'http://muse.adobe.com/index.html' | gzip | wc -c
   11521

Hmm, so 11.5kB vs 1.7kB with gzip, which I believe browsers can usually handle. That's a factor of 6.6, incidentally. I don't know much about this, but might it still be ok?

I thought to check this because of ridiculousfish's old article (note the FAQ at the bottom, "Isn't that a humungous flood of markup?"): http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/archives/2009/06/01/roundy/#f...

InclinedPlane5• 15 years ago

P.S. The big background image is only about 49kb...

nickolai• 15 years ago

Hopefully this issue will get back on the table with increasing mobile internet usage, and people bouncing off because of poor load times. I cant count the number of times I have to hit the back button just because it takes too long to load.

I really do not want to see that 1mb picture of your dog mascot, but i was actually interested in your 5kb product description... Oh well if you dont care about your site, you probably dont care about selling your product either.

tiddchristopher3• 15 years ago

The original does have at least one advantage: preloaded hover images. It's nice for them to improve usability a tiny bit, along with all the bloat. I can't imagine a complete newcomer to HTML and CSS hacking together a page and having it come out nearly as bad. Any designer who can learn design can easily learn to code better than Muse, in my opinion.

strager• 15 years ago

Sprite sheets?

godsped2• 15 years ago

To add insult to injury, the layout is broken in chromium on Ubuntu. Whereas the remake you posted is running as expected.

http://i.imgur.com/otaOc.png

dcordeiro• 15 years ago

Speaking of which, "Adobe Air is not available for your system." :-P

doublesprout• 15 years ago

Dreamweaver required you to know quite a bit about HTML. Muse is like InDesign/Photoshop, which people use to do mockups of designs (not UIs/wireframes) today. It cuts translation to code from the workflow. That's a meaningful shortening of the feedback loop for a designer.

As for the rest of us, we don't have to be concerned till Muse starts learning the quirks and features of CSS faster than ourselves.

AlexCP• 15 years ago

Seriously, you have to learn how to use css sprites...

chadgeidel2• 15 years ago

Thanks for that. I know a little about ancient-style table-layout web dev, but didn't know what the "proper way" of laying out that site would have been.

josscrowcroft4• 15 years ago

"You can design and publish original HTML pages to the latest web standards without writing code" - WTF

I think compounding all this inefficiency is how they have "" on EVERY SINGLE DIV.

Someone should use the Tilt extension to visualise this page in 3D (http://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/07/tilt-visualize-your-web-pag...) and screen cap it.

bherms2• 15 years ago

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/661094/tilt.png

william42• 15 years ago

Now do it for the remake posted up in this thread.

zacharyvoase• 15 years ago

Has anyone seen the video? They're trying desperately to map print paradigms to the web. It's a major fallacy which many developers (and product managers) fall into.

jackowayed• 15 years ago

So it will sell well to companies with a lot of money, then? Sounds like a good product.

pyre• 15 years ago

It will sell well to companies with a lot of money by telling them what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. It depends on your definition of a 'good product.'

yuhong• 15 years ago

I am not surprised. What do you think WYSIWYG is supposed to mean?

shabble• 15 years ago

Ideally, you'd have "What I See Is What You Get." Then traditional designers (the "I") can have their pixel-perfect whatevers reproduce exactly on every single system/configuration (the "You").

Or, you could have "What You See Is What You Want, Based On What I Think Is A Good Way To Do This (But You Can Also Choose)"

Things like resolution independence, mobile/small display support, gestural interaction support, impaired-senses accessibility, graceful degradation, and multi-browser compatibility all go towards into that, IMO. It may not be identical on every system, but it will look good and be usable.

I can't really see WYSIWYW,BOWITIAGWTDT(BYCAC) being the next sales paradigm shifting quantum leap of buzzwordology though.

realize• 15 years ago

That is one of the most horrible things I've ever seen. Adobe, please stop having such bad taste. Whenever there's a right way to do things, you seem to commit to the OTHER way.

josscrowcroft4• 15 years ago

Wow, looks like you really _can_ create striking sites with Muse: http://maxart.s3.amazonaws.com/muse/index.html

jeffreymcmanus• 15 years ago

Particularly amused by <p class="paragraph">

lean• 15 years ago

OOCSS says to never specify elements in the CSS, right? :)

cloudwalking• 15 years ago

People on HN love ripping on Adobe. I agree that the code is gross, but can we get some constructive criticism? What's a better way to programmatically write good HTML?

I'm willing to bet everybody on this thread writes their HTML by hand. How many of you have a framework for programmatically writing HTML? How many have a framework for writing HTML as broadly as Muse can?

sunchild3• 15 years ago

WYSIWYG for HTML is just never a good thing. You spend more time learning the idiosyncrasies of a crippled GUI when you could just get busy in a text file.

skrebbel3• 15 years ago

I agree! I also think compilers are ridiculous. You spend much more time tuning their output and learning their arcane options and switches and pragmas than you would need just writing ASM by hand.

schlomie• 15 years ago

Yes, I also write all my programs in assembly for the same reason...

ugh3• 15 years ago

Why? WYSIWYG works perfectly well in InDesign (which is absolutely awesome, by the way), why can it never work with HTML? I don’t really understand.

Current and past implementations are or have been bad, sure, but why can’t it work in principle?

yahelc• 15 years ago

WYSINWYG: What You See Is Never What You GEt.

mun2mun2• 15 years ago

But first tell me why designers need html page generator? Is learning HTML and css that much hard in google era?

tjarratt• 15 years ago

Do you really think everyone has 100+ hours to spend learning the idiosyncrasies of HTML and CSS? That's asking a lot for someone that just wants to put up a landing page for an idea, or to design their portfolio.

Everytime my artist friend wants to put their portfolio online, I suggest they start by writing some simple markup and half an hour later I'm explaining the finer points of the box model while they whinge about how they'd rather be using Adobe Illustrator. The truth is that there will always be a group of people that are able to visualize what they want to create better than they can verbally, or symbolically.

notatoad• 15 years ago

I have some scripts i use to generate my html. i don't have a framework for generating HTML in as broad a scope as muse because that is a bad idea. Beyond a certain level of complexity, you actually need to stop and think about things.

The right way to do a GUI HTML editor is to provide some templates and some customizations.

tiddchristopher3• 15 years ago

Regarding constructive criticism, I posted elsewhere in this thread that Muse generated a div to preload hover images. It's a nice bit of usability optimization, but the code could certainly benefit from a dose of minimalism. Even if Muse initially generates the page with this much bloat, I'm thinking it would be trivial [for Adobe] to run the page through an optimizer that rips out anything without style assigned to it. Then it could refactor the stylesheets, getting rid of redundancies, i.e. styles targeting p.paragraph and the like, and run a second round of optimization. Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong, but it would be worth the effort if they could cut the page into even a tenth the original size, which is a gross under-expectation.

libria2• 15 years ago

Well, at least they're using it. It hurts adoption if people perceive Microsoft to be tepid about WPF or Google with regards to Go. But Adobe is clearly dogfooding.

tomelders• 15 years ago

Adobe will get my constructive criticism when they build something worthy of it, and not a second sooner.

Until then, deal with it.

X-Istence• 15 years ago

Since everyone is saying look at the source, might I suggest taking a look at the CSS that is produced for that specific page ... yes, I said page. Each page has its own CSS file that is REALLY big.

olalonde• 15 years ago

I'm definitely playing the devil's advocate here, but didn't assembly programmers have the same kind of reaction regarding compiler generated assembly not so long ago?

perlgeek• 15 years ago

At least the compilers produce valid assembler code most of the time.

Deestan• 15 years ago

Assembly is low level; practically machine code. It is hard for humans to read, and writing a program concept in assembly must go through a lot of layers.

HTML is high-level and designed for humans to read and write. It maps directly to the concepts it conveys.

cksk• 15 years ago

I registered just so I could say this. People keep comparing HTML to Assembly. Come on. HTML is probably the highest level you can get when talking to a computer, at least for the foreseeable future.

I think the more appropriate comparison is to those software generators, or whatever they are called, in which you drag and drop buttons and text fields and have arrows (or something) to convey action.

You don't see a lot of good software made with those, now, do you?

HTML is not Assembly. It's not even C. It's Python, or Ruby.

stephen_g3• 15 years ago

As Deestan said, there's a massive difference between how low level assembly code is, and how high level HTML is. But even more than that is the fact that they're fundamentally different. Decomposing a sequential list of instructions down into machine code is something that a is fairly simple to do algorithmically. But HTML is not a programming language - it is a descriptive instead of declarative or imperative.

In the end, humans are a lot better at describing things than algorithms, and I think that's the biggest problem with WYSIWYG HTML editors.

mcauser• 15 years ago

Makes ColdFusion look efficient by comparison

armandososa2• 15 years ago

I recommend reading this post by Zeldman from last year: http://www.zeldman.com/2010/07/05/an-indesign-for-html-and-c...

    Says Nack:

    As I noted the other day, “Almost no one would look
    inside, say, an EPS file and harrumph, ‘Well, that’s not
    how I’d write PostScript’–but they absolutely do that    
    with HTML.”

potatolicious• 15 years ago

There's a good reason for that - clean HTML is not just the territory of pedantic/obsessive designers, it has tangible and important benefits to many sites (note: many, not all).

Sure, if you want a personal homepage, or put up an ode to your dog Scruffy on the internet, tools like this may very well work for you. But in those use cases, we've already had capable tools for years, many of which produce cleaner code than this.

For anything bigger/more professional, dirty/bloated HTML/CSS means a few things:

- Bigger downloads for your visitors, wasting their bandwidth. But whatever, you're not paying for that, right?

- More data transfer for you and your host. That you do pay for.

- Increased latency (sometimes massively) and decreased accessibility for people with slower connections. Given the awesomeness of American broadband performance, that means most of your customers/visitors. More latency = more bounces = fewer visitors buying stuff from you, reading your ad copy, etc etc.

- Increased rendering times. See: bounce rate.

And these aren't negligible effects. The difference between a 10KB and 100KB file is very significant, and you don't need millions of uniques a month to find out the difference.

Dirty EPS files are not the same thing - because unclean PostScript suffers from none of these deficiencies except bigger downloads - which for EPS files has little to no consequence in the typical use case.

tjogin• 15 years ago

And then, on top of all these fine points, you'll get into trouble when you want to do something outside of what the tool provides. Then you need to touch the code, which is a horrible mess; with code this bad you'll want to kill yourself.

sarnowski• 15 years ago

There are worse things than the technical ones if you write bad HTML. Just two keywords: - accessibility / barrier-free - search engine optimization

nodata• 15 years ago

Also: clean HTML enables hackability.

jules• 15 years ago

Just like PNG output from Photoshop, soon HTML+CSS output from design applications will beat most humans, or at least be reasonably close so that this complaint doesn't apply any more. It's not very hard to do a lot better than the source code of this web site.

Will Google design their homepage with Muse? No, they want to hand optimize it. Will people design websites for small businesses that get accessed a handful of times per day with something like Muse, when its output gets better? Yes. It might not make nerd-sense, but for a lot of sites it does make business-sense to have an increased page size in return for saving a lot of design and development time. Think of it this way: of all the things a person designing a website for a small company might spend their time on, is reducing page size the most profit increasing activity?

tomlin• 15 years ago

For me, this is really about code generators in general. No need to center Adobe out here, as I can't think of a single IDE that doesn't generate all kinds of extra code that, to me, is useless 90% of the time.

You also should keep in mind that Muse is a beta and the Muse site itself was actually written with Muse.

In this case, I think Adobe deserves the benefit of the doubt. They're trying to showcase this product with hopes that people like us will come to the table and give constructive feedback rather than point to the past and say, "See, I told you! Damn Adobe!".

loup-vaillant• 15 years ago

Good article, except for this minor point:

> Certain kinds of human creativity and expertise cannot be reproduced by machines. […] [machine's] music can never be the Eroica or “This Land is Your Land,” because there is no algorithm with the creative and life experience of Beethoven or Woody Guthrie.

Of course, I agree with the practical point where no current machine can do human art. Because of that we can't currently automatically extract the semantics of an image, or even convert a post-script document into clean HTML. So, it doesn't affect the conclusion in the foreseeable future.

But one can't seriously believe there's no algorithm behind an artist's art without believing in some kind of ghost controlling her brain, and that ghost somehow doesn't run an algorithm. As far as I know, there is no such ghost. It very much looks like our cognition (including our art), is entirely the product of physical processes, even though it definitely doesn't feel like it.

Now, I reckon art is not just the product of some internal algorithm, running in isolation from the rest of the world. We're highly interactive beings, and our output mostly depend on our input. But there is some kind of algorithm which does all these interactions, though it is likely incredibly complex.

My point is, I wouldn't loose hope of automating something that currently, only humans can do. Take spam filters, for example. With very little knowledge, they can take out spam with stunning accuracy. But if no-one told me about Bayesian filters, I would likely try to make the computer parse the whole e-mail like a human, then give up, thinking that only humans can understand those e-mails well enough to filter them (note my mistaken assumption that the spam filter somehow must acquire some high-level understanding of the e-mail to do its job).

StavrosK• 15 years ago

Didn't someone write an algorithm for music generation that produced pieces styled after classical composers that actually did have their style?

I can't find the page right now, but it had samples and they sounded quite good.

Maybe this? http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/experiments.htm

Sniffnoy• 15 years ago

I find your largely contextless restatement of the quote a bit odd, when the actual post is quoting that from somewhere else, and explaining why this is so (when out of context the quote seems to imply that this shouldn't be so).

armandososa2• 15 years ago

it's a teaser not a TL;DR; read the context.

bad_user• 15 years ago

Somebody else mentioned the benefits of semantic HTML for saving bandwidth / crawlers.

I'm going to mention something else: fluidity.

It is very easy to patch together a good looking design in Photoshop. But the Photoshoped-content does not move. The window cannot get resized. The divs are not flowing, they are not resized or shrunken as the user moves the window handles.

Also, while CSS has many flaws, it does provide separation of presentation from content.

Many authors prefer writing entire books in Latex. Do you know why? It's because of the What-I-See-Is-What-I-Mean style of writing, which is far better as from a single Latex source you can generate HTML, PDF files and optimized ePubs, for whatever medium you desire and have it look exactly as you intended it to look.

HTML is also about developing input-interfaces.

I did work with Delphi, also with the editor in Netbeans called Matisse, which does a kick-job at defining Swing interfaces. Also worked with Visual Studio and with Adobe Flex Builder -- nothing comes close to the ease with which I work with HTML.

Heck, I'm working on a desktop client right now that just embeds a webkit view with native-hooks, simply because I don't feel like learning yet another sucky GUI-toolkit that will disappoint me in one way or another.

Also, I started my webdev carrier by using Adobe Dreamweaver. It was one of the dumbest things I ever did.

snorkel• 15 years ago

No, clean HTML semantics still matters a lot! Forget about programmatic efficiencies like crawlers and page load times. Think about the poor web dev who is handed this steaming heap of bad markup like so:

Management: "We need you to change all the buttons on this web site and enlarge the logo."

Web dev: "OK, these pages were puked out of Muse. Do you have the Muse project files and a copy of Muse for me to install?"

Management: "Muse? What's that? No, we don't have the source files. Can't you just edit the page?"

Web dev: "Sure. After I drink this bottle of Scotch and look for other job postings."

So guess what? HTML is still source code not a machine language.

cbs2• 15 years ago

So guess what? HTML is still source code not a machine language.

Your metaphor would be great, if it wasn't for all the times developers (myself included) have been asked to dig into assembly or bytecode to fix something when the higher level source file had been lost to the ages.

Compared to those, editing machine generated html is a treat.

protomyth• 15 years ago

Back a number of years, people were actually very concerned with what was in the EPS or PS files. Preflight before publishing was critical to make sure the files didn't overload the printer. A screwed up print run was pretty costly.

This was with a single vendor spec that was fairly comprehensive. The web is a loose spec with multiple vendors.

Zak• 15 years ago

Perhaps a bigger problem than maintainability using external tools (since one could continue to use Muse to edit the page) is performance. The page is slow to render from the cache in Chrome on my not-slow laptop, uses 153M (compared to 35M for the alternate code elsewhere in the comments) and requires the transfer of quite a bit of data (still significant on mobile connections).

azulum• 15 years ago

Muse (code name) Design and publish unreadable HTML because you don't write code.

jmitcheson• 15 years ago

There is company that makes a Photoshop plugin that converts to HTML/CSS/Images too

http://www.medialab.com/

I don't know what the output is like, though.

rrrazdan2• 15 years ago

The sense I am getting is that GUI generation of markup code is as inevitable as was the first compiler back in the old days. Whether that point is now or not remains to be seen. Back then we had a combination of increase in RAM sizes/processor speed and democratization of Computers beyond advanced research laboratories, that prompted this change. It no longer was necessary to worry about that extra 10 KB or so of cruft that the compiler added. I see similar concerns about file sizes here, whether the point of not caring for bandwidth is here remains to be seen. And could this be the second wave of web democratization? I'd love to see my mum design her website with this.

mattmanser• 15 years ago

Are you too young to remember front page?

We've already trod this path and it lead us to dark places.

rrrazdan2• 15 years ago

Like I said the correct time and the correct product will be the beginning of a new era. It definitely wasn't time then, and it may not be now, but isn't it kinda inevitable, that we would someday move to a layer of abstraction above the html code?

apricot13• 15 years ago

div soup is better than table soup!

leon_2• 15 years ago

So they use tables. Big deal.

I don't get that CSS snobbery. Tables do work on even older browsers. That's something you want for a tool that generates code for people who don't want/can't put up with writing HTML themselves. For them the product has to work and look good in most of the browsers.

intranation2• 15 years ago

It's not CSS snobbery. It's HTML snobbery, which to some people still matters, for the usual accessibility reasons as well as wanting to write the correct code for the job.

leon_2• 15 years ago

Sure, but if you're hired to write HTML code then I guess you won't be using tools like this. You know how to work around browser perks. But Joe who just wants a website made probably doesn't - and he doesn't care.

andybak• 15 years ago

Did you actually look at the code?

Tractiol• 15 years ago

Hilarious how many people on Hacker News care what the HTML looks like.

You really are idiots if you're worried about 'that much text' going over the internet. You have no concept of data.

stephen_g3• 15 years ago

Some people here actually run popular web sites. When you're serving millions of requests a day, a few KB of difference in page size can make quite a bit of difference on how much you pay for bandwidth...

Not to mention that when a browser doesn't render the page correctly, some people don't like wading through thousands of lines of div-soup when they could be debugging one hundred and fifty lines of markup instead...

arnorhs3• 15 years ago

This software, Muse, was not used to build that website.

The software used is Business Catalyst (http://businesscatalyst.com/), an enterprise CMS (all-in-one solution urgh) Adobe bought 2-3 years ago. And yes, the semantics are very bad.

In fact, I disliked this piece of software so much, I wrote a post about it a few months ago: http://arnorhs.com/2011/01/19/11-reasons-why-business-cataly...

rb2k_• 15 years ago

The only thing I see is that the jquery is served from a CDN address that has catalyst in the name. Where else do you see something pointing at Business Catalyst?

arnorhs3• 15 years ago

Also at the top there's this comment:

  <!-- BC_OBNW -->

also see: http://twitter.com/#!/bc_obnw

And if you view a screenshot of the html of the top of the page and compare that with the BC website:

http://cl.ly/2g2w0I3w0L1m1R1j1Z1O vs http://cl.ly/0m3Y0s0J3r0d3H3h4626

When you think of it, it is very possible that the website's theme/html/CSS was built using muse at one point, but then it might have been transformed into a BC theme/template

phsr2• 15 years ago

Scroll down to the bottom of the page, it states: "This site built in Muse (code name) by Adobe®".

acostin2• 15 years ago

Hi Arnorhs, I am Alexandru working for Adobe, and I recently took over Business Catalyst.

We did read your review and took it at heart - it wasn't easy as you were very direct. However, there is a lot of truth in your review and there's a lot for us to improve. And believe me, that's our goal - to improve the product until customers love it and we have folks like you give us much better reviews :) - because you would actually like the product.

I'd love to chat with you and try to show you where we're going and get your perspective on what should we do differently. Your feedback would be very important for us.

If you're interested, please contact me at acostin@adobe.com

Sincerely,

Alexandru

arnorhs3• 15 years ago

I'm sorry if I hurt somebody's feelings (though, that was not my objective).

There were a lot of positive articles on-line when I was evaluating BC. But I later found out that most of them are written by various BC-partners (a good business decision there) - but that also meant that they were a bit biased and skipped over the bad parts.

I'll send you an email. I'm pretty sure Adobe is able to make it better (I'm an avid adobe fan mind you)

steele• 15 years ago

Why not CQ5 or ADEP?

corry• 15 years ago

I agree that coding your design into HTML/CSS is a waste of time generally. I've had good luck with PSD-to-HTML services.

So instead of Adobe automagically converting my design to HTML/CSS/images, you get humans from India (or wherever) doing it by hand.

For $100 - $200 you can get clean, cross-browser, easily tweakable HTML/CSS and images. And you get it in 24 hrs.

I've used www.psd2html.com a few times and the quality was quite high.

RobLach• 15 years ago

I wouldn't recommend Muse purely because this is how that page renders for me:

http://i.imgur.com/c7tBl.png http://i.imgur.com/6DUW0.png http://i.imgur.com/sfGmv.png

chaz• 15 years ago

Which browser / OS?

RyanMcGreal• 15 years ago

Characters: 32,767

Characters after stripping HTML, javascript and CSS: 1,464

epo• 15 years ago

On a casual inspection this is just bloated ineptness, exactly what I have come to expect from Adobe.

One passage consisted of a string of empty divs of the form <div class="wrap"></div> which a decent 'code generator' would simply have omitted. In fact the bulk of the bloat appears to be divs which add nothing to the page.

I strongly suspect one previous version of this code generated tables, then they got the "tables used for layout are bad" memo and did a simplistic translation to nested divs.

Perhaps, to be charitable, they have debugging turned on.

cbs2• 15 years ago

Oh heavens! An ugly html file? We can't have one of those dirtying up our monstrosity that poorly attempts to turn a document into an application.

beatpanda• 15 years ago

This is a great product, insofar as 10-year-olds will steal it from BitTorrent and use it to get their first taste of web design, then stop using it once they get serious, then reminisce about how terrible their first projects were. Just like lots of us did with FrontPage.

secoif• 15 years ago

I have seen far, far more bloated code generated by Drupal (esp. Using panels module)

QuantumDoja• 15 years ago

Q. How many of your visitors look at your pages source code?

Q. How many times do you inspect the compiled assembly to see what it generated?

One day these tools will be perfect, it's just a shame for me that Adobe have copied what I've done for the second time: http://blog.gameweaver.com/2011/08/16/has-adobe-copied-anoth...

Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

Related Stories