Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:05:09 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Luca Ferrari <fluca1978@infinito.it> Cc: FreeBSD Questions Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, David.I.Noel@gmail.com Subject: Re: Your favorite wysiwyg HTML/JS editor? Message-ID: <20140215130509.4c68109e.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <CAKoxK%2B45LGMqNehyh8vzWGfuFs1aRoO1Gbb=_ReLAkV4-0=KnQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHAXwYBNR9-d=D97Qpr0QC-f_E3E0sB_e81JtGzxgr=xFe1gBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKoxK%2B45LGMqNehyh8vzWGfuFs1aRoO1Gbb=_ReLAkV4-0=KnQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:49:43 +0100, Luca Ferrari wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 8:11 AM, David Noel <david.i.noel@gmail.com> wrote: > > I see about a dozen in ports.. does anyone have a favorite? > > Emacs! > Ok, is not a wysiwyg editor, but at least is an editor that avoids > "what you see is not what you are going to get". You can utilize a good editor (emacs, vim, maybe gnotepad+, whatever "feels best" for you) with one or more web browsers. With virtual desktops (or dual screens) this can be a quite good web develop- ment environment, serving all the involved components (HTML, CSS, JS, maybe server-side stuff too). Many professionals seem to prefer the YAFIYGI (you asked for it, you got it) approach instead of WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) because in reality this is a lie. What _you_ get and what _others_ get (your clients, customers, friends, you on a different computer) depends on factors that no editor can fully compensate. What you _get_ is depending on the web browser and how it renders the conglomerate of HTML, CSS and JS. So you are fully right: You usually do NOT get what you see. I know some professional web developers and even "full stack engineers" (or however they call themselves this week) who have successfully abandoned the "see" part of their work, replacing it by their ability to imagine the result from their code, verifying it in actual web browsers, depending on their clients' specifications (like "has to work in outdated 'Internet Explorer' from 15 years ago, because you're designing a corporate web app" and similar stuff). Especially with the complexity of "modern" web pages, WYSIWYG doesn't seem to fit the bill anymore, because there's already so much "behind the scenes" (mostly CSS and JS with its many libraries and frameworks) that it cannot be mapped into an immediate visual representation of the _creation_ work. Personally, I did give up WYSIWYG in this field of work years ago. It's just too much work, a waste of time and unsuitable for anything remotely complex. Of course that's just my very individual experience. > And by the way, what does it mean having a wysiwyg JS editor? The magic in JavaScript is that you actually don't see anything, so leave the file empty and the editor will magically do what you think your client wants. However, the WYSIWYG editor to perform that task still has to be written... :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140215130509.4c68109e.freebsd>