The problem with Muse is that it doesn't solve any problem better than existing solutions. The pure spaghetti code is generates (along with the requisite explo

The problem with Muse is that it doesn't solve any problem better than existing solutions. The pure spaghetti code is generates (along with the requisite explosion in payload size) makes it practically useless for any large website where the quality of the code, size of payload, latency, and bounce rates actually matter. So that leaves the "non-serious" website market - homepages, simple blogs, etc, where these concerns are significantly muted, if not entirely irrelevant; but that's not what Muse is targeted at. Not to mention, there are many competent tools out there already that do the same thing without (as much) rampant spaghetti output (see: Dreamweaver, FrontPage, along with a myriad of others). The objections I hear against Muse aren't people objecting to Adobe's "violation" of their puritanical, text-only, hand-crafted HTML aesthete. It's objection against a horrible solution. > "Eventually Muse might even created better HTML than a hand coder." So, because Muse might eventually, in some future state, produce acceptable (or even good!) output is supposed to shield it from criticism? In that case, I'd like to drop all of my criticisms of local politicians. Because, you know, in some future state, these guys might actually know what they're doing.