HTML editor

[Kekewy]

I know a lot of HTML, so I'm been asked by a friend to build and maintain an extensive website for them. The usual webpage I make is small, with some flash or Java, so I code it all by hand. However, looking at the size of this project, hand coding would be insane and take forever. So I need to find a GOOD HTML editor. I've used Hotdog before, and trials of Dreamweaver. But my friend is being very price concious, and has pretty much ruled out a copy of dreamweaver.
Does anyone know of a very good software for making webpages? It needs to have a lot of java, flash, ect capiblities, and be easy enough that I can pick it up quickly. It needs to be inexpensive too. Thanks so much for any suggestions you might have.

 

[kamper]

I'm seriously doubting you're really putting java in these webpages. Javascript maybe...

 

[Markbnj]

There are quite a few options. Microsoft's free IDE is probably one of the best platforms for you, given that it is free, and integrates support for HTML, CSS, XML, and javascript. There is a little bit more of a learning curve than for a simple editor, as would be true of Dreamweaver or any other integrated development environment.

If you want a powerful editor I like jedit, and there are a crapload of other choices, many with syntax highlighting, block indenting, and other programming features.

 

[sourceninja]

NVU ( http://www.nvu.com/ ) is a very good free and open source editor. I use it as a dreamweaver repalcement for linux when i'm feeling lazy (I normally use bluefish). It has a windows version. I suggest you try it.

 

[Markbnj]

NVU is ok. I used it for awhile building my own site. It's a little buggy though, and personally I think it is just about the worst out there for munging up HTML source. Hard to compare it when Visual Web Developer is also free, and much better supported.

 

[sourceninja]

I've never wanted to try using MS web products after being forced to use frontpage 2000. That was a horrid nightmare. But no the less I can not try VWD because I don't use windows. However I find NVU code to be clean if you start with it and only use it. It will munge up your code if you use it on existing pages. I really dont use wysiwyg programs all that much. I'm a code guy. I get the job done much faster with bluefish or vi. How does VWD handle php and ruby on rails? Also does VWD produce fully compliant xhtml code?

 

[Markbnj]

I really dont use wysiwyg programs all that much. I'm a code guy. I get the job done much faster with bluefish or vi. How does VWD handle php and ruby on rails? Also does VWD produce fully compliant xhtml code?

I agree, wysiwyg editors make too many assumptions and put too much crap in the code. MS's products are no better than anyone elses. Not sure if it produces fully compliant XHTML or some MS variant, but I don't think it matters much.

I believe I read somewhere that there was a RoR extension for Visual Studio. Not sure if it is true, or whether it applies to VWD.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

I really dont use wysiwyg programs all that much. I'm a code guy. I get the job done much faster with bluefish or vi. How does VWD handle php and ruby on rails? Also does VWD produce fully compliant xhtml code?

I agree, wysiwyg editors make too many assumptions and put too much crap in the code. MS's products are no better than anyone elses. Not sure if it produces fully compliant XHTML or some MS variant, but I don't think it matters much.

I believe I read somewhere that there was a RoR extension for Visual Studio. Not sure if it is true, or whether it applies to VWD.

The only reason xhtml matters to me is I guarentee my clients fully w3 compliant code unless I explicitlly am forced to make an exception. In a market flooded with people who do web design, its a little feature like supporting all browsers from text based to firefox that gives us that edge sometimes. Not that I've had any work in the last few months.