| 5:56 pm on Oct 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I went to an MX seminar before it was released and had quite the chat with the MM guys about this. They say it is good for fast creation of code and then you may have to tweak it after.
They didn't seem like they were going to try to win over a hand coder except for the speed of production. I honestly haven't tried it yet though, would be interested if anyone has any hands on experience.
| 6:25 pm on Oct 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'd be interested in this as well. Although I'm an avid hand coder for HTML, my ASP and PHP knowledge is limited. We've just switched all of our client sites to a Unix host and are making use of PHP on pretty much everything.
Would be nice if upgrading to MX could help out with this.
| 8:52 am on Nov 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
As a newcomer to php, I have used MX on a couple of sites and it works well. However, I have now find that coding some scripts myself is better in some cases. I have found that you need an understanding of php to use MX as the 'help' is not that 'helpful'!
| 3:30 pm on Nov 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I use DreamWeaver to create all the HTML (forms, tables, etc) and then 'fill in' the PHP code by hand.
| 2:42 pm on Nov 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've heard that MX supports PHP coding but I have my doubts as to how well. The primary reason for my lack of faith is that Macromedia now owns ColdFusion - a PHP competitor which costs a fair chunk of change.
| 3:36 pm on Nov 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
from my experience mx at least does not harm the php-code i won't buy it though because the trial was slow on my y2k pro (esp. find and replace) plus i didn't like some changes in the handling coming from dreamweaver 4.
| 2:42 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
IMHO MX is garbage - wish we never bothered upgrading.
Their PHP code is appalling, is generally bloated, and still uses variables that have been depreciated.
Seems to be about as accurate as their xhtml/css support.
Thanks to MX, I have been forced to become intimately familiar with XHTML, CSS, and PHP far more so than I would have been, and now hand code almost all of it!
I shan't comment on what I think of MX's stability etc.
| 2:50 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
and now hand code almost all of it
then it could have been a very beneficial switch ;)
| 9:56 am on Dec 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have been using drewamweaver ever since version 3 was released. I make only simple web pages ... it's great for simple web sites. Mx includes asp/access, php/mysql and jsp ...it also includes .net capabilities. It's cool for junior web page creators like me ....
Flaws would inlcude that hard coding would only take up atleast half the file size that dreamweaver uses ... it's slow and not stable, also it does not keep up with new releases of php, mysql etc. etc.
Pro's would include - it's easy to use , great wysiwyg env. good beginner examples (i.e only in mx), simple installation.
verdict - good for beginners but pro's stay away.
| 9:48 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have just started using MX. I use it to create the html, I then write my own php code. I don't use the MX php code for the reasons stated above. I like the way MX links to my development web server, which means that I can see how all of my php includes look while I am designing the pages. I also prefer the new interface to that of v4. So long as you don't want it to write code for you its very good.