Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source. • Hacker News Board

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#11

Post by josscrowcroft » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 4:46 AM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #7

pierreminik wrote: post #6

Please, tell me this is Adobe trying to mock IE. It has to be, right? I mean, they've always sort of not valued source code, but this is beyond torturing it. This is so inspirationally horrible someone spent hours remaking it, like it should've been: http://studentweb.infotech.monash.edu/~wlay/FIT1012/muse-dem... .

Indeed. The inefficiency here is astounding, especially considering the relatively straightforward page layout involved. Original: 1496 lines, 77.9kB Your version: 104 lines, 4.75kB I'd thought we'd progressed beyond the state of a decade ago where Dreamweaver or what-have-you would build you a cumbersome and baroque html splooge to match whatever you had done in the designer, but I guess we haven't advanced that far…

As long as tools like Dreamweaver exist, there will be a need for good front-end developers to clean up the mess.

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#12

Post by realize » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 4:49 AM UTC

That is one of the most horrible things I've ever seen. Adobe, please stop having such bad taste. Whenever there's a right way to do things, you seem to commit to the OTHER way.

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#13

Post by josscrowcroft » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 4:51 AM UTC

Wow, looks like you really _can_ create striking sites with Muse: http://maxart.s3.amazonaws.com/muse/index.html

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#14

Post by jeffreymcmanus » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 4:52 AM UTC

Particularly amused by

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#15

Post by jackowayed » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 4:56 AM UTC

zacharyvoase wrote: post #10

Has anyone seen the video? They're trying desperately to map print paradigms to the web. It's a major fallacy which many developers (and product managers) fall into.

So it will sell well to companies with a lot of money, then? Sounds like a good product.

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#16

Post by tiddchristopher » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 4:59 AM UTC

pierreminik wrote: post #6

Please, tell me this is Adobe trying to mock IE. It has to be, right? I mean, they've always sort of not valued source code, but this is beyond torturing it. This is so inspirationally horrible someone spent hours remaking it, like it should've been: http://studentweb.infotech.monash.edu/~wlay/FIT1012/muse-dem... .

The original does have at least one advantage: preloaded hover images. It's nice for them to improve usability a tiny bit, along with all the bloat. I can't imagine a complete newcomer to HTML and CSS hacking together a page and having it come out nearly as bad. Any designer who can learn design can easily learn to code better than Muse, in my opinion.

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#17

Post by ramen » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 5:06 AM UTC

josscrowcroft wrote: post #11

InclinedPlane wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The inefficiency here is astounding, especially considering the relatively straightforward page layout involved. Original: 1496 lines, 77.9kB Your version: 104 lines, 4.75kB I'd thought we'd progressed beyond the state of a decade ago where Dreamweaver or what-have-you would build you a cumbersome and baroque html splooge to match whatever you had done in the designer, but I guess we haven't advanced that far…

As long as tools like Dreamweaver exist, there will be a need for good front-end developers to clean up the mess.

What a shameful waste of a good front-end developer's time.

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#18

Post by strager » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 5:06 AM UTC

tiddchristopher wrote: post #16

pierreminik wrote: post #6

Please, tell me this is Adobe trying to mock IE. It has to be, right? I mean, they've always sort of not valued source code, but this is beyond torturing it. This is so inspirationally horrible someone spent hours remaking it, like it should've been: http://studentweb.infotech.monash.edu/~wlay/FIT1012/muse-dem... .

The original does have at least one advantage: preloaded hover images. It's nice for them to improve usability a tiny bit, along with all the bloat. I can't imagine a complete newcomer to HTML and CSS hacking together a page and having it come out nearly as bad. Any designer who can learn design can easily learn to code better than Muse, in my opinion.

Sprite sheets?

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#19

Post by cloudwalking » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 5:07 AM UTC

People on HN love ripping on Adobe. I agree that the code is gross, but can we get some constructive criticism? What's a better way to programmatically write good HTML?

I'm willing to bet everybody on this thread writes their HTML by hand. How many of you have a framework for programmatically writing HTML? How many have a framework for writing HTML as broadly as Muse can?

Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.

#20

Post by bherms » Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 5:08 AM UTC

josscrowcroft wrote: post #9

"You can design and publish original HTML pages to the latest web standards without writing code" - WTF I think compounding all this inefficiency is how they have " " on EVERY SINGLE DIV. Someone should use the Tilt extension to visualise this page in 3D ( http://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/07/tilt-visualize-your-web-pag... ) and screen cap it.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/661094/tilt.png