3 ms·
<insert dreamweaver joke here> I am sort of surprised at how talk about static websites is only becoming top of mind as of recent. When I think of static websi
by markandrewj 7y ago
<insert dreamweaver joke here>
I am sort of surprised at how talk about static websites is only becoming top of mind as of recent. When I think of static websites used with success, I always think of Obama's campaign, it was built with Jekyll. There was quite a bit of talk around static websites around that time, and it seemed like quite a few people were on-board with the idea.
When people talk about static website generators though, I don't think many people are talking about tools like dreamweaver.
- WorldMaker 7y agoA lot more people would be talking about tools like Dreamweaver (and FrontPage) if they weren't a long time gone. It's been nearly two decades from the last "proper" release. Some of the spirit of Dreamweaver lives on in other tools in Adobe's Creative Cloud, but also are harder to use, and more expensive.
- markandrewj 7y agoI think of dreamweaver more as a wysiwyg tool than a static site generator. Although you can obviously generate static sites with it, I don't think it really fits the modern workflows I would associate with static site generators.
- WorldMaker 7y agoDreamweaver and FrontPage both had very nascent/early ideas towards Content Management, they weren't "just" WYSIWYG tools towards the end. Given how much work goes into making static site generators WYSIWYG when building content (such as tools like Netlify CMS), the "ideal" is probably somewhere in the middle. Had PHP hosting not got so cheap so quickly and subsequently early PHP CMSes become so common, it's possible there was an alternate universe where Dreamweaver or FrontPage continued to evolve into really interesting static site generating Content Management Systems.