4 ms·
It was generally considered bad because it (and other programs like it) often generated bad markup with a lot of overhead, spurious tags and what you might call
by arexxbifs 6y ago
It was generally considered bad because it (and other programs like it) often generated bad markup with a lot of overhead, spurious tags and what you might call "bloat". While there's certainly bloat today too it was a different experience on dialup, especially in the early days when you paid not only for the phone call but were also often charged a steep hourly rate by the ISP.
There was also quite a bit of elitism and protectionism about it, because for a while a lot of people were actually more or less making a living from writing nothing but plain HTML. If anyone can make a web page, what good are HTML skills? Quickly, let's find something bad about it and save our jobs!
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoI used Dreamweaver, back in the day. You could have it produce outstanding markup, but that meant spending a lot of quality time, playing with the templates.
- drivingmenuts 6y agoI mostly used it for its preview capabilities and as a text editor, for which it worked pretty well, building my own templates by hand. If you actually knew HTML, CSS and a smattering of JS, it was a great tool for organizing the small bits and pieces of a web site. If you didn’t, things could get ugly pretty fast.
- rbanffy 6y ago> often generated bad markup with a lot of overhead, I just looked into the nightmarish tree of nested div's and span's (of which FrontPage and DreamWeaver are innocent) that's a Twitter feed. JFC, I don't want to ever have to scrape one.