4 ms·

What exactly is the use case for Coda? It doesn't seem like it offers any benefit for dynamic websites, but then it doesn't have wysiwyg editing either. I am cu

What exactly is the use case for Coda? It doesn't seem like it offers any benefit for dynamic websites, but then it doesn't have wysiwyg editing either. I am curious why it is popular.

slantyyz 14y ago
Probably because it has an attractive UI that makes it a little more approachable (subjectively) for web developers than the likes of Textmate. It's not as if Transmit really brings that much to the FTP world, but people seem to really love it.
- clobber 14y ago
  Transmit doesn't seem that outstanding to me either. I've also found that FTP clients on Mac are missing a nice feature found on many Windows clients: multi-part (accelerated) transfers.
willtheperson 14y ago
I've always wondered the same thing. It seems like Panic is getting a pass just for being Panic. When there's something like Sublime Text 2 out there for $60, I'm surprised people are so attracted to these all-in-one apps that aren't as extendible and typically load files slower.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  >> It seems like Panic is getting a pass just for being Panic I think this is very true, and it applies to their entire product line. It still boggles my mind how popular Transmit is. Having said that, extensibility isn't for everyone. I have licenses for Coda, Textmate and Sublime, and I like them all. Personally, I do like the one-window approach that Coda takes, but that's a ultimately a taste thing.
- clobber 14y ago
  It's also worth checking out Chocolat: http://chocolatapp.com/ http://chocolatapp.com/ I think it's on par with Textmate and currently $34
incongruity 14y ago
Coda 1 was pretty good when it was released – it raised the bar for approachable HTML and CSS tools, compared to many of the available tools. Coda 2 actually seems to take a step backwards and it certainly doesn't measure up to the rep that Coda 1 earned out of the gate. It makes some jumps in terms of ancillary UI widgets but it doesn't dramatically change or improve workflows over Coda 1, as far as I can see in 15 minutes of exploring. It doesn't integrate well with dynamic sites or version control from what I can see. At a minimum, it'd be nice to be able to have a first-class embeded webkit browser as one of the options for the frame/panes but the closest they come is a preview – which works really hard to only render the file you're working on (but does include a small URL field). The big new feature is MySQL integration? Clearly they had a very specific user persona in mind – and I don't really know who that is... but I think they're from ~5-10 years ago. I think I'll pass, honestly... sadly. I hope I'm just missing something because this was an update I wanted to see.
raquo 14y ago
Coda (1) is a great tool for beginners, if you're just figuring out HTML/CSS/JS/Wordpress/PHP/Terminal/etc. It also works well for those who are not supposed to be too technical – designers, for example. As you become a more proficient developer, you begin to appreciate the configurability and extensibility of textmate/sublime/emacs/whatever over the polished but limited workflow conventions of Coda. (At least I did, Sublime FTW!)
rahoulb 14y ago
For me, it's because it's a Mac app. I've paid for Sublime Text and it does the job (and is my preferred editor on Linux), but, for me at least, it doesn't "fit" on a Mac as well as Coda. And I can't really tell you why that is.
darkpicnic 14y ago
I just bought Coda 2 thinking it had improved by leaps and bounds. It's just the same thing, more or less. What site actually has urls ending in .php these days? How can you preview pretty URLs? It's just a total waste of money.

What exactly is the use case for Coda? It doesn't seem like it offers any benefit for dynamic websites, but then it doesn't have wysiwyg editing either. I am curious why it is popular.

slantyyz 14y ago

Probably because it has an attractive UI that makes it a little more approachable (subjectively) for web developers than the likes of Textmate. It's not as if Transmit really brings that much to the FTP world, but people seem to really love it.

clobber 14y ago
Transmit doesn't seem that outstanding to me either. I've also found that FTP clients on Mac are missing a nice feature found on many Windows clients: multi-part (accelerated) transfers.

willtheperson 14y ago

I've always wondered the same thing. It seems like Panic is getting a pass just for being Panic. When there's something like Sublime Text 2 out there for $60, I'm surprised people are so attracted to these all-in-one apps that aren't as extendible and typically load files slower.

slantyyz 14y ago
>> It seems like Panic is getting a pass just for being Panic I think this is very true, and it applies to their entire product line. It still boggles my mind how popular Transmit is. Having said that, extensibility isn't for everyone. I have licenses for Coda, Textmate and Sublime, and I like them all. Personally, I do like the one-window approach that Coda takes, but that's a ultimately a taste thing.
clobber 14y ago
It's also worth checking out Chocolat: http://chocolatapp.com/ http://chocolatapp.com/ I think it's on par with Textmate and currently $34

incongruity 14y ago

Coda 1 was pretty good when it was released – it raised the bar for approachable HTML and CSS tools, compared to many of the available tools. Coda 2 actually seems to take a step backwards and it certainly doesn't measure up to the rep that Coda 1 earned out of the gate. It makes some jumps in terms of ancillary UI widgets but it doesn't dramatically change or improve workflows over Coda 1, as far as I can see in 15 minutes of exploring. It doesn't integrate well with dynamic sites or version control from what I can see. At a minimum, it'd be nice to be able to have a first-class embeded webkit browser as one of the options for the frame/panes but the closest they come is a preview – which works really hard to only render the file you're working on (but does include a small URL field). The big new feature is MySQL integration? Clearly they had a very specific user persona in mind – and I don't really know who that is... but I think they're from ~5-10 years ago. I think I'll pass, honestly... sadly. I hope I'm just missing something because this was an update I wanted to see.

raquo 14y ago

Coda (1) is a great tool for beginners, if you're just figuring out HTML/CSS/JS/Wordpress/PHP/Terminal/etc. It also works well for those who are not supposed to be too technical – designers, for example. As you become a more proficient developer, you begin to appreciate the configurability and extensibility of textmate/sublime/emacs/whatever over the polished but limited workflow conventions of Coda. (At least I did, Sublime FTW!)

rahoulb 14y ago

For me, it's because it's a Mac app. I've paid for Sublime Text and it does the job (and is my preferred editor on Linux), but, for me at least, it doesn't "fit" on a Mac as well as Coda. And I can't really tell you why that is.

darkpicnic 14y ago

I just bought Coda 2 thinking it had improved by leaps and bounds. It's just the same thing, more or less. What site actually has urls ending in .php these days? How can you preview pretty URLs? It's just a total waste of money.