I guess I found myself the answer here:
|brotherhood of LAN|
Welcome to the forums,
The topic has came up time and again at WebmasterWorld, some people prefer more control over their code while others prefer a WYSIWYG editor (there are plenty more than DreamWeaver)
Here are some of the older threads:
Nowadays, I think the discussion is more about "shall I use a pre-made content management system / make a website from scratch"
Personally I would recommend learning to hand code first and build a trial site by hand. Once you can do that then you will be able to understand what the software is doing and how to work around any shortcomings. I wouldn't necessarily recommend hand coding a major business site.
Brotherhood of LAN
thank you for the welcome!
I'll follow the advice of Piatkow.
Thank you for your two responses!
I checked out your link Valdo, and that site makes some erroneous assumptions - I've seen tons of hand coded sites that don't even come close to W3C validation (#1). :-)
Always been a hand coder, but I sum it up like this:
When your car breaks down, who would you rather be, the guy who stands there looking under the hood, scratching his head, reaching for his wallet and not knowing what he's paying for, or the guy that identifies that the distributor cap wire came loose, reconnects it, and is on his merry way?
valdo i guess it is a preference thing.....but i agree 100% with these guys and do all my coding by hand. I would say at the very least you should know your way around html and css fairly well....good luck
Rocknbil and Meelosh ... A big thank you for your excellent advice!
To me what it boils down to is not hand coding vs. WYSIWYG but -- whatever you use -- do you understand what you are doing?
<p>Ah, the fine art of hand coding. Without it, I would have never understood that with which I work with every day. I mean, <q>I know <abbr title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</abbr> like the back of me hand</q> as they say.</p>
<p>I do use a <abbr title="What You See Is What You Get">WYSIWYG</abbr> editor every day too. I typically work in HTML mode. I've not yet found an editor that is perfect in how it renders code. There's always something that can be improved. We've actually reconfigured many aspects of our editors to produce virgin HTML and we rely mostly on external <abbr title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</abbr> and document level styling.</p>
<p>Did you know there are <em>108 HTML Elements in HTML5</em>? Not to mention a whole bunch of attributes to go with them. I don't know of many editors that include the entire library of those. Many need to be hand coded as there just isn't a button for all of them. That's the worse thing that ever happened, that whole button thing! Ever watch an inexperienced user with a WYSIWYG that has about 30+ functions to use? <strong>Oh boy!</strong></p>
<p>Remember the <blink><font></blink> element?</p>
On the other hand...
|When your car breaks down, who would you rather be, the guy who stands there looking under the hood, scratching his head, reaching for his wallet and not knowing what he's paying for, or the guy that identifies that the distributor cap wire came loose, reconnects it, and is on his merry way? |
When your car breaks down, who would you rather be, the guy who stays home trying to figure out how to fix it and do it without the right tools, or the guy around the corner who can get you back on your way in a breeze?
Yes - know some code; know a little about what is going on - but don't become a mechanic yourself.
The first time you figure out the mechanic charged you $400 to re-attach a single wire you'll wish you had.
I think the point rocknbil is trying to make is that you should know enough so you can take care of the basic and some intermediate stuff yourself. That way, when the distributor cap comes loose (or your AdSense ads appear at the bottom of a page after you tweaked the layout), you can do it yourself instead of paying someone a lot of money.
Also, you can know when you are in over your head (like when the engine explodes) and you can let a professional take over.