Blog

30Jun
2013
On Dreamweaver CC And ColdFusion

The release of Dreamweaver CC brought some important enhancements to the product, along with a renewed focus on client-side development and technologies. To support that focus the Dreamweaver team made a decision to deemphasize other areas of functionality. And among the removed features is some of Dreamweaver's ColdFusion support. This has upset many in the ColdFusion community, and understandably so. But, as usually happens, facts and realities get misconstrued amidst the angst and hand-wringing. And so this is a chance to try to set the record straight.

It is true, the Dreamweaver team has significantly reduced support for ASP/ASP.NET, JSP, and CF. That was a business decision. Every product team has to do what they think is in the best interests of their product. The ColdFusion team has to do what they think is best for the ColdFusion business, and that includes a CF10, a planned CF11, an upcoming conference, and, yes, ColdFusion Builder. Likewise, the Dreamweaver team has to focus on what's important for them and their numbers, and their client-side focus makes sense to them (and, actually, to me, too). Would I like Dreamweaver to do it all? Sure, but that's not practical, and so they made the trade-offs and decisions that every Product Manager has to make. And personally, I like the Dreamweaver focus; it's long overdue. Do you know that DW6 still had dialog boxes with Netscape Navigator icons in it? Seriously, Dreamweaver was suffering from ongoing feature addition while nothing was ever deprecated or removed. As I said, this was overdue.

And so, yes, Dreamweaver now has less ColdFusion support. But, to be brutally honest, I had given up on Dreamweaver support for ColdFusion a long time ago because Dreamweaver has never been a true ColdFusion IDE. Even back in Allaire days when I worked with the then Macromedia Dreamweaver team to add ColdFusion support, the support was minimal at best. There was one release (MX maybe?) that added some decent CFC support, but honestly, there has been no real Dreamweaver support for ColdFusion since then, just more of the same. And over the years that has frustrated me far more than Dreamweaver CC reducing ColdFusion support does. And so, recognizing Dreamweaver for what it was, the ColdFusion team opted to build ColdFusion Builder, and that's where they are putting their efforts. I understand that many don't like ColdFusion Builder, I'm not a major Eclipse fan myself, but ColdFusion Builder is a far better CFML IDE than Dreamweaver ever was, and so that's the focus going forward. And there are other alternatives, too. In fact, even Brackets now has a work-in-progress community based CFML extension.

Now, just so I am very clear. I use Dreamweaver extensively for what it does best, client-side work. I recently worked on a project which made extensive use of jQuery and jQuery UI, and Dreamweaver worked perfectly and intelligently and usefully. But I've not used Dreamweaver for CFML for years, and for those of you who are still using Dreamweaver for CFML development, I'd take this latest change as a long overdue nudge to find a better IDE. I know it'll take effort, but you'll really be better off for having done so.

That said, you actually can use Dreamweaver CC for CFML development. Here are the facts:

  • First, what does work? Syntax color coding works as it always did. Edit a tag and you'll still get popup attribute help as you always did. Shortcuts like Ctrl-Spacebar still bring up the complete list of CFML functions, no change there. ColdFusion specific menu selections, like the one to wrap text within CFML style comments, still work. In fact, ColdFusion appears on the Insert menu to give you access to CFML tags (although, it appears that not all of the selections work properly).
  • Ok, so what is missing? ColdFusion specific panels and tabs are gone, including the ones for CFC generation and for WSDL introspection. Also, the File, Open dialog defaults to displaying only HTML pages, which makes opening .CFM files a pain.
  • Anything else? Yep, the big issue is that the DW team broke the OS .CFM file association, making opening .CFM files irritating. It is still possible to open .CFM files from within DW directly (the already noted limitation notwithstanding). That said, the DW team has published this doc to explain how to fix this oversight.

So, bottom line, chicken-little overreactions aside, it is indeed true that the Dreamweaver team has opted to deemphasize server-side development, and that includes diminished ColdFusion support. But that does not mean that Dreamweaver CC cannot be used for CFML development, it can, albeit not as cleanly and with some changes. The most important support, the language awareness within the editor, remains as is.

As for what comes next, I'll say it one more time. Dreamweaver has had CFML support, but it was never a CFML IDE. Feel free to continue to use it, but also look at ColdFusion Builder and 3rd party tools, too.

Related Blog Entries

Comments (45)



  • Orhan Can

    Since Mx years, integration of CFM to Adobe, didnt worked, or CEOs or somebody elses always behaved like stepchild to it.(Fireworks also same faith)
    We were always worried about(developer guys) it. Whatever youre gonna sign/unsign with that CC company please do it. God makes them CC in the future, i wish.
    Were gonna stay with ColdFusion/ApacheDerby, even UltraDev4 is good enough...

    #1Posted by Orhan Can | Jul 1, 2013, 01:39 PM
  • Joseph Potthast

    Good points all together and very well laid out. If only something well laid out and explanatory could have been the first notice of these changes I would hope this public outrage could have been avoided.

    Personally it' makes sense I stopped using DW long time ago since it was a good html editor but CF always seemed clunky once I actually learned enough CF to be able to do it on my own.

    #2Posted by Joseph Potthast | Jul 1, 2013, 02:07 PM
  • Todd

    One thing tho, is the callous disregard Adobe shows for independent consultants/contractors who have to now buy yet more things from Adobe just to do our work. Every version of CS removes another product from the suite. In consecutive releases, Contribute and Soundbooth, which requires the purchase of one more thing. (E.G. while I don't need Contribute for myself, my clients use it so I need to make sure what I develop in Dreamweaver actually works in Contribute and so that I can answer their questions.) Luckily, Audacity is a decent replacement for Soundbooth.

    But now, I have to buy CFB just to continue on. Why isn't it an option in CS? Give me the option to toss Flash and add CFB.

    Adobe has said "our customers are not cost sensitive." I beg to differ.

    #3Posted by Todd | Jul 1, 2013, 02:23 PM
  • Michael Dawson

    All along, I thought there was too much server-side support, for any language, in DW. It complicated the UI and menu system. I'm pleased to see it focusing more on the client-side development.

    I recently migrated from DW CS5 to Sublime Text 2 (ST2) and the associated ColdFusion package. Although I only used DW as a code editor, not WYSIWYG, it was still kind of a culture shock to convert to ST2. However, after a few weeks, I'm just as proficient, if not more, than I was after years of using DW.

    #4Posted by Michael Dawson | Jul 1, 2013, 02:33 PM
  • Ben Forta

    Actually Todd, there is a free edition of ColdFusion Builder, so no, Adobe is not forcing you to buy anything else.

    http://cfdocyard.blogspot.com/2011/05/coldfusion-b...

    --- Ben

    #5Posted by Ben Forta | Jul 1, 2013, 02:58 PM
  • Tim

    Ben, if CFB really is free, or has this free edition, why does it nag me daily to buy it?

    I was really hoping for a way to confirm I want the "Free Edition" and stop getting nagged about the fact it is purchased, rather than feel like it's nothing more than a crippled trial. (Which it is, but I don't like being reminded of it.) Every time I see the nag screen I'm reminded I wanted to migrate away from it, and the more I think that, the less I'm letting my self become dependent on it.. and the less dependent I am, the less likely I would ever break down and actually purchase it. I would bet there way of doing a "Free Edition" is losing them many more sales than if they just gave us the stripped down features, with an upgrade option in the menu.

    #6Posted by Tim | Jul 1, 2013, 03:26 PM
  • Ben Forta

    ColdFusion Builder will indeed nag you while in trial mode, and then after that it will revert to free Express edition. From the FAQ: "Once the trial is over, the IDE will revert to ColdFusion Express, a basic ColdFusion code editor."

    --- Ben

    #7Posted by Ben Forta | Jul 1, 2013, 03:58 PM
  • Scott Sledgister

    Removing ColdFusion support was about the dumbest thing Adobe could have done. By doing so they have signaled the death of CF. I mean it must be dead Dreamweaver no longer supports it. That will become the common takeaway from this change. I hate ColdFusion Builder and used Dreamweaver as my preferred CF IDE. Someone at Adobe needs to be fired over this and a service pack released asap to return CF support to Dreamweaver. Dumbest move I've heard of period. I guess its time to cancel my CC account because Adobe broke their promise to support ColdFusion which was the only reason I upgraded from CS5.5.

    #8Posted by Scott Sledgister | Jul 1, 2013, 04:15 PM
  • Mark Gregory

    I would think that a company like Adobe wouldn't be silo-ing teams away from each other, but encouraging them to blend in to a more coherent whole. Having each team do what they think is best for their own product is surprising and a little disturbing.

    However, I think I have known maybe 2 devs in the last several years that used Dreamweaver, and frankly, at least one of them was a truly terrible programmer.

    All things weighed, I see this as a non-issue.

    #9Posted by Mark Gregory | Jul 1, 2013, 08:13 PM
  • Andrew Scott

    One of the things that amazes me, is that Adobe could very easily have migrated Dreamweaver to an Eclipse plugin.

    This would mean that those using Builder get a decent HTML Editor and Designer and those who use Dreamweaver get a decent CFML Editor and set of tools that really extend their development and productivity experience.

    Just a thought for the Dreamweaver Team to think about.

  • Richard McKenna

    Having used Dreamweaver for many years before switching to CF Builder for ColdFusion development I understand the need to refocus the application however I do question some of Adobe's decisions of late. You mention in your post about the Dreamweaver team reducing sever side features and focusing on front end development. Last I checked PHP was for server side development yet it seems to be getting more features in each release. The part I don't understand is ColdFusion is Adobes equivalent server side language but always seems to get put to one side when it comes to integration with Adobes other products. As a totally random comparison it's like Illustrator working better with GIMP than with Photoshop.

    I don't use the Express Edition of CF Builder but to me it seems like an infinite trial rather than a free Express Edition (see Microsofts Express editions for a better example).

    While slightly off the subject of your post I feel the opposite is happening with Photoshop. Instead of focussing on photo editing it's turning somewhat into an application for designing websites despite the lack of real tools for the job. Instead of trying to have one application to fit all, do the same with Photoshop as Dreamweaver and focus on one feature set. This brings me to the decision on discontinuing Fireworks. I've had a rant about this elsewhere so wont here, but my point was Photoshop isn't a replacement for Fireworks.

    As for the whole Creative Cloud debate, I understand it was a business decision and keeps a constant cash flow going but some more subscription options would be much appreciated. At the moment it's a 1, all or nothing situation. I need more than one application but I sure don't need all of them. I would basically have to subscribe to a lifetime of £46.88 ($71.36) per month payments in order to access my files. Which is a huge financial commitment. I feel a subscription somewhere in between 1 and all would be a much better solution for many, £30 for 3-4 applications for instance.

    Apologies if this has turned into a bit of a rant.

    #11Posted by Richard McKenna | Jul 2, 2013, 07:03 AM
  • Mark Fuqua

    I am trying to like Creative Cloud. I have been a subscriber for 14 months. Just kicked over to $49/month. However, I am a Macromedia transplant…the two products I use are Dreamweaver (and I use it for Coldfusion) and Fireworks. I am certainly not going to download the CC versions of any products and will probably revert to the CS3 products I own perpetual licences for.

    I really wish Adobe had never acquired Macromedia or when they decided to kill all the Macromedia products…Flash, Flex, Fireworks, Freehand, Dreamweaver…they had spun them out into a competing division/product line/company.

    As a Flex and ColdFusion programer, I will probably follow Adobe’s lead/push down the HTML5 path…but I'm thinking I'll do it with someone else’s products.

  • Peter Tilbrook

    Can we get a workspace with everything on the left like DWCS6?

    Why they removed that is beyond me and makes it harder to use after being on the left for YEARS.

  • MCG

    not to beat a dead horse, but if adobe is not dropping CF, what do they categorize it as? from their home page under products they list creative cloud. Create cloud is listed as a suite of products for Creatives and Also lists Web Development as being part of that suite. - OK fine, so CF does not belong under web development. I would disagree with that but will accept it. But under the Adobe product list where can I find CF Builder?

    You have to go to all products and search for it in a the alphabetical list. - So the only people that will ever find this are the people that are specifically looking for it. - They are not looking to grow it.

    We have been a CF house since allaire. but this move has scared me into learning and using PHP for our last 6 projects. I still prefer CF, but our new customers no longer know what it is, and when they look it up all they can find is articles talking about how it is dead.

    If adobe does not get behind it with some marketing it will go the way of the Dodo.

    #14Posted by MCG | Jul 2, 2013, 10:00 PM
  • Large Client

    I use Dreamweaver for CF development pretty much exclusively. The same gripes the CF team has about DW and server side programming I have with CF Builder and client side coding. People don't want to have to have the same file sets open in two different apps. I find DW less lacking in server side, than CFB lacks in client side, thus I use DW. I was happy for creative cloud, but its definitely blowing smoke. Not a good start of trust for Creative Cloud.

    I mean a tab and file association is the only thing between happy customers and Adobe is opting to not comply? Maybe a business decision, but a poor one.

    #15Posted by Large Client | Jul 3, 2013, 02:38 AM
  • TomasF

    Adobe really did this to themselves. They could have saved themselves so much damage control by making this (pretty significant) change very clear before product launch (yeah, I know... it's not much fun for Marketing, but then again look where it landed you).

    Also, you could have ramped up your CFB migration guides for DW CFML users. I don't know how many times I've downloaded the CFB trial (and not once realized it was also a free version either), tried to learn it. Tried to set it up against my remote dev server. Become frustrated and disillusioned. Moved back to DW. Rinse. Repeat.

    I figure part of my problem is that I don't have a local development environment on the workstation running CFB. I see in the comment section on Ray's blog and elsewhere that people like me who don't run a local server are "holding it wrong". We shouldn't use remote servers to develop against. It's not efficient, secure, all sorts of things.

    Well, it worked just fine from DW for years, so it's obviously doable, and I do maybe 3 CF projects a year, I don't want a sh*tload of web servers, db servers, and java servers dragging my system performance down (yes, even with the services stopped there's a bucketload of extra stuff loaded to run that) 24/7 for the rest of the year.

    Telling people they sometimes need to get their head out of the sand and reevaluate how they work is fine. Telling them that installing an entire dev environment on their local system because that's the only way to do this work is not. Not only does it not deal with the fact that people work differently and have different needs, but speaking as my main role as an enterprise server administrator, it's not even particularly good advice from most viewpoints other than trying to make Eclipse a viable development IDE. And tbh, that'll take even more tall stories...

    #16Posted by TomasF | Jul 3, 2013, 07:14 PM
  • John Farrar

    I wonder if the Brackets extension works for all Code Mirror based solutions.

    #17Posted by John Farrar | Jul 11, 2013, 09:40 AM
  • Ali

    I use CFB at home and work. After the trial ended, it still nags me about entering a paid license.

    Apparently it's supposed to switch to an Express version, however it's been over a year, and I still have to deal with the nagging pop-up.

    #18Posted by Ali | Jul 23, 2013, 07:47 PM
  • Bill Downs

    I am in the process of reinstalling DW CS6 - I just can't help it. I've tried Brackets and Coda 2 ( both have support for CF tags ) but they just don't seem very convenient. Brackets doesn't support FTP yet and I can't seem to have it sort files by date. It's those little frustrations that are building up and costing me time. Since when is fragmentation of a work flow considered a positive?

    This all seems just so damned silly and I can't believe that in this day and age that I'm having a compatibility issue with between Adobe products. The analogy of GIMP working better with Illustrator then Photoshop does is a good one.

    I don't understand the push to try CF Builder? I'm sure it's fine if you live in CF all day but I bounce around between the server-side AND the client-side. I'm positive I'm not the only one. Maybe CFB 3 will be a fantastic bridge between front-end and back-end development but I don't think Adobe is thinking like that. Still, I can hope.

    I'm not threatening giving up CC altogether ( I have AE and PS open right now and I love them) as that's just silly. I just need a good alternative and I'll never open DW again. As of now I don't have one so I'm annoyed that my cheese was eaten rather then just moved.

    Finally, business decision or not - PHP is still in DW while CF is not. Even Chicken Little gets it right sometimes.

    #19Posted by Bill Downs | Jul 30, 2013, 04:47 PM
  • Mark Fuqua

    @Bill Downs

    I am close to going back to DW CS3. It is the latest perpetual licence I own. I have been using Creative Cloud for well over a year now (several months past the introductory price). I use three Adobe products...Dreamweaver, for ColdFusion development, Fireworks and Flash Builder for Flex development. Dreamweaver (at least how I use it) and Fireworks are being discontinued and Flash [anything] is now very tentative to say the least. Adobe seems to loathe even uttering the word Flash these days.

    I'm really quite sad. I was a Macromedia guy...I am very sorry to see Adobe, especially now, jettisoning all Macromedia related products.

    Dreamweaver, especially as it relates to ColdFusion, and Fireworks really haven't changed that much in the last few release cycles...

    It's been a fun ride, I'll miss Adobe/Macromedia.

  • rick

    Really? Toeing the Adobe line on this one are we? I don't know any CF developers that are happy with CC removing CF support. It's simply Adobe's way of forcing developers to purchase another tool. I'm already paying a monthly ransom so I can use CC. Now I have to purchase another product for an over-inflated price? Nope. Time to switch to PHP.

    #21Posted by rick | Aug 19, 2013, 11:52 PM
  • Tim

    @Rick, don't jump to PHP too quickly, CFML is still a great language, maybe it's just time to give Railo a spin.

    #22Posted by Tim | Aug 20, 2013, 08:50 AM
  • Dani

    Is there anyway to get .cfm files added to the "related files" filter?
    I keep getting the "cannot apply a filter that will result in no related files" message.
    Thank you!

    #23Posted by Dani | Jan 22, 2014, 10:38 AM
  • idzyns

    I finally gave up on DW cc. Tried brackets, but it is still to early (it does have some great features so far though). Moved to sublime. It works well enough. - now if I can just find an alternative to Photoshop I will drop my adobe monthly fee altogether.

    #24Posted by idzyns | Jan 22, 2014, 10:45 AM
  • Rick

    Please - can you toe the Adobe line any straighter? This is a total crock and a way of forcing developers to waste even more money on half-baked products. The Cold Fusion Builder has always been terrible and overpriced.

    #25Posted by Rick | Jan 26, 2014, 12:21 AM
  • Andrew Scott

    Rick, Not to mention that no bugs have been fixed for 2 years, or any form of update at all for CFB. Most of the bugs introduced in CFB V2.0 used to work in CFB V1.0 and low and behold Adobe want us to fork out more money for the next version instead CFB V3.0, not sure what world they think this business model will continue to work for them...

    Especially since there are some serious open source competitors too all their products.....

  • AnnyIngram

    I was really hoping for a way to confirm I want the "Free Edition" and stop getting nagged about the fact it is purchased, rather than feel like it's nothing more than a crippled trial.

  • dantheman

    What a load of spin.
    PHP development is fine its just ColdFusion they dropped.
    Classic Adobe they bought Macromedia to get web funky but its
    Photoshop, Premiere etc get all the love.
    A Macromedia product at Adobe is like a new ensign on the bridge of the USS Enterprise ...

    #28Posted by dantheman | Mar 18, 2014, 05:06 AM
  • Dawesi

    "chicken-little overreactions"

    wow... you've sold out to the Adobe machine... Forta was once a champion, now a disgrace. The only chicken little is your pathetic attempt to put your nose between your bosses buttocks.

    Time for a reality check, or a change of job perhaps.

    You were once a great advocate for something.

    #29Posted by Dawesi | Apr 8, 2014, 07:19 AM
  • Steve Sommers

    Ben, I usually agree fully with your posts but this one kind of baffles me. I understand that Eclipse is probably a better CF editor since Adobe appears to be distancing itself farther and farther from CF -- at least all departments other than the CF department. But you also mention that Dreamweaver is great for client side project using jQuery and other client side libraries/technologies and you give an example. What if your project involves both CF and client side -- which I would have thought most do? I'm assuming you are recommending the use of two editors. That seems counter productive to me.

    I'm disappointed that Adobe departments/teams act as individual and sometimes opposing companies. As passionate as I am about CF, I'm finding it harder and harder to justify sticking with a technology that its own vendor does not appear to fully support. Our company just upgraded everyone to Dreamweaver CC 2014.0 – as this was STRONGLY pushed by Adobe. My IT department was the first line to hear the “where’s my CF support” complaints as Eclyplse is not currently an approved product at my company. We are rushing through an emergency vetting of the product and now the “why stick with CF” argument has been sparked again due to Adobe’s internal disconnects.

    (sorry, just venting – I know you have connections)

  • Dawes

    Ben, you're a twat.

    Get off your ass and do some f'n work for a change.

    Adobe are the worst management and evangelist team on the planet.

    Hey, our users want this, ok, let's drop that feature and make them pay more for a pile of cr-ap, then pretend the 3 hours it would have taken to implement it was due to someone elses decision...

    BEN, YOU ARE A LIAR, AND A FRAUD.

    Still pretending to be an evangelist. You're a sell out.

    You've been on the bad management gravy-train too long Ben. Please quit while you have an ounce of dignity left.

    Adobe are the laughing stock of the development world because they think their spin works.

    IF YOU LIE, WE KNOW. WE HAVE BRAINS!!

    Stop trying to sell us ColdFusion Builder (worst ide ever) and just spend the 3 hours to implement code support.

    FOR GOD'S SAKE!

    Is it just me or does Ben really think he's fooling anyone!


    PS: I use Dreamweaver for CF Coding, I will continue to do so, and will continue to blog, and ring and email support and make SURE Adobe spends hundreds to thousands of dollars of time trying to spin to me why I should use that sh-ite editor called CFB, when Dreamweaver does the job.

    Welcome to expensive customer year. I'm about to make this mistake cost you thousands!

    Now STOP LYING, and tell the friggin' truth Ben.

    #31Posted by Dawes | Jul 29, 2014, 08:17 PM
  • Ben Forta

    Dawes, I ignored your first comment here, and I am going to ignore your second one as well. But, before I do so, I'll do you the favor of at least explaining why. If you want to have a discussion I'm always more than happy to do so. I'm willing to discuss anything and we don't even have to agree. Really. But I will insist that comments be civil and mature for them to warrant becoming a discussion. As your comment is anything but civil and mature, it's being ignored.

    --- Ben

    #32Posted by Ben Forta | Jul 29, 2014, 08:35 PM
  • Dani

    Ben, you are right, that's not a way to get a discussion going. But try to see it from the user's perspective.
    Removing support for ColdFusion (at least the related files area) it makes the user to change the way we work.
    Maybe the analogy is off but it's like starting to drive cars with the steering wheel at the opposite side. And having to learn how to makes me less productive. I don't like CF Builder so I don't use it.

    Again, I agree that we should be civilized when commenting but please try to understand the frustration. It's productivity what we are loosing due to Adobe's decisions.

    Just that.

    #33Posted by Dani | Jul 30, 2014, 11:00 AM
  • Ben Forta

    I get that, Dani, I really do. While, as I noted in the original post, I personally gave up on Dreamweaver as a CF IDE long ago, I know that others still use it, and the changes in Dreamweaver are thus disruptive. And for that reason I'd have preferred if the Dreamweaver team had improved (the admittedly meager) CF support rather than remove any functionality. I don't like their decision and I have never justified it, but I do understand it and did try to explain it from a purely (unemotional) business perspective.

    All that said, the point of the post was to A: explain what changed in Dreamweaver, B: clarify that Dreamweaver could still be used if desired, and C: mention alternatives.

    And no, I have never said that CF users should migrate en masse to CF Builder. For what it's worth, since I posted this over a year ago I am finding myself using CF Builder less and less. While it has really impressive CFML support, and the team has really been innovating, the fact that it is built on Eclipse essentially ruins it for me. I find Eclipse based tools too slow and sluggish to use, they frustrate me to the point that I'd happily trade fewer features for greater performance. So lately I am using Brackets (with CFBrackets) more and more, it lacks anything more than basic tag awareness, but it is so darned fast that it feels like I stepped into a timewarp and rediscovered HomeSite!

    The bottom line is this. The Dreamweaver team made a business decision, one that the CF community understandably doesn't like. They are not going to unwind that decision, that's a reality. So, it's time to look for alternatives. And as such, I stand by my comments in the original post.

    --- Ben

    #34Posted by Ben Forta | Jul 30, 2014, 12:37 PM
  • Dani

    Thank you Ben for your answer.
    It's good (and sad) to know that "They are not going to unwind that decision, that's a reality".
    It makes me understand that's time to look around.

    Do you -or anyone- know any DW alternative that will feature "related files"?
    Working with CFM files and being able to edit any related/included file without having to opening it is key to my productivity.

    Although I'm still using CS6, I may eventually be forced to move forward with CC.

    Again community, thank you for the time spent answering and sharing ideas.

    #35Posted by Dani | Jul 30, 2014, 12:55 PM
  • Steve Sommers

    As I mentioned previously, product decisions like this makes people not only question using Dreamweaver, but ColdFusion as well. If Dreamweaver is dropping support for CF, does that imply that Adobe is dropping support for CF? Someone at Adobe needs to play the role of parent and make sure all the products compliment each other. If the Dreamweaver developers spent have the time adding CF features as they do PHP features, I'm sure the CF community would be overjoyed.

  • Michael Dawson

    Dani, look at Sublime Text 2 with the ColdFusion extension. The ST2 workflow is much different than the GUI interface of DW, but ST2 has greatly improved my development speed with its multiple selection cursors and quick access to all files in a project. Watch a few videos on ST2, then look at the available packages. You might find something that works for you.

    #37Posted by Michael Dawson | Jul 30, 2014, 02:24 PM
  • Dani

    Thank you Michael for your suggestion.
    Although I have tried ST2 with the CF extension in the past, I must admit that I've never given to much time due to, as you said, its workflow. I'm 43 and it's hard to change habits, but I guess it means I haven't tried hard enough.

    Thanks again!

    #38Posted by Dani | Jul 30, 2014, 02:30 PM
  • concerned

    I just want to echo some of the comments here.

    Just because you stopped using Dreamweaver years ago doesn't mean that other people have.

    Your chicken little reference is insulting. See your response on here about discourse, minimizing concerns in a condescending way isn't going to endear you to anyone.

    I still believe that Coldfusion is a superior server side language but if Adobe dropping support in Dreamweaver of Coldfusion isn't the deathknell then I don't know what could be. They didn't need to improve ANY features. Just make it recognize the tags and basic functionality like cfincludes. The decision is baffling UNLESS they are phasing out Coldfusion. As others have stated on here, the one thing that we COULD point to for Coldfusion's viability was that it was supported by Adobe. Give me one sign that it isn't going to go the way of Fireworks after CF11?

    #39Posted by concerned | Aug 21, 2014, 01:26 PM
  • Ben Forta

    "Concerned", that associative reaction is exactly why I used the "chicken little" reference. No, I was not being condescending or even dismissive. But the ColdFusion community has a long history of seeing signs where there are none. In fact, ColdFusion is 17 or so years old now, and this has been happening for most of those 17 years. Back in Allaire days, when Allaire acquired Live Software, some panicked that ColdFusion was being abandoned for JRun. And then when Macromedia acquired Allaire there were all sorts of doom validating signs. Same when HomeSite was EOL'd, and again when development ceased on ColdFusion Studio (and those last few were far more direct associations).

    I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The Dreamweaver team (like the Photoshop team, the Acrobat team, and every other team) makes decisions that they think best for their business. The ColdFusion team does the same. We'd all have preferred if Dreamweaver had maintained (and even improved) ColdFusion support, but the Dreamweaver team opted not to. That says nothing about Adobe's commitment to ColdFusion, it says lots about Dreamweaver priorities.

    Does ColdFusion have a future? ColdFusion is a business, if they business makes money then the product has a future, and if not then not. Sorry to put it that bluntly, but that's the reality, as I have stated repeatedly. You want longer term proof? There is none. Just like there is no proof that Microsoft will release Office 2016, and there is no proof that there will ever be a Java 9. No software company can provide those guarantees, sorry. I can't give you a sign that ColdFusion has a future any more than I could have given you a sign of the same back in CF4, CF5, CFMX, CF7 ... days (even though many found signs that "concerned" them).

    The bottom line is that the ColdFusion team is working on a next version. If CF11 continues to do well, then I'll assume that there will be future versions. If that does not happen then there won't be. And as already noted, that's fundamentally true of every piece of commercial software. Anyone who makes guarantees otherwise is lying.

    --- Ben

    #40Posted by Ben Forta | Aug 21, 2014, 07:25 PM
  • Dani

    Ok, then from a business perspective, did they notice a bunch of CF developers jumping to ColdFusion Builder to support their decision? I mean, I know some CF programmers and they moved to other solutions like Brackets or Sublime, which doesn't give Adobe any money (I imagine).
    Of course I have no clue about Adobe figures on this, but I do hear developers reactions to these decisions.
    And if from 10 DW users 5 moved to CF Builder and 5 to another solution, I guess Adobe is loosing rather than winning.
    Sorry Ben, I know (as you sated in one of your answers) that Adobe is not planning to step back with its CF support decision, but then I'm missing something here I can't understand.

    Maybe it would be great to hear from Adobe why they don't care about Dreamweaver users who happen to be CF developers.

    #41Posted by Dani | Aug 21, 2014, 08:37 PM
  • Ben Forta

    Dani, I highly doubt that the Dreamweaver team paid much attention to what ColdFusion developers would use instead. I don't know that unequivocally, I've never asked that question. But, and this is the important part to keep in mind here, I do know that the Dreamweaver team does (and continues to do) extensive research into what their users are doing and what features they are using. And as much as many don't want to hear this, the percentage of Dreamweaver users who were using the tool to write CFML was miniscule. If that had not been the case I am pretty sure ColdFusion support would have been enhanced, not reduced. We can debate why so few ColdFusion developers use Dreamweaver (and perhaps more importantly, why such a small percentage of overall Dreamweaver use was ColdFusion related). But that is a separate thread. The important thing is that the Dreamweaver team decided to focus on where the product is used most, which brings us back to business decisions.

    --- Ben

    #42Posted by Ben Forta | Aug 21, 2014, 08:46 PM
  • Dani

    Thank you Ben. I guess the question is not why they don't give more support but why they removed it.
    But anyway, something tells me that this conversation can go on and on and on and I feel the only thing we (the extremely small portion on Dreamweaver users) want is that support back. But since that seems to be out of discussion, let's change subjects.

    So here I propose a new one: Do you know how can I see CFML related files on Dreamweaver CC?

    Have a great evening Ben.

    #43Posted by Dani | Aug 21, 2014, 08:59 PM
  • DanSecDev

    Dani - as in the following article http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/...

    Also in cf pages you can right click on cfincludes and there is an option to open that include code in another tab.

    #44Posted by DanSecDev | Aug 21, 2014, 09:06 PM
  • Ben Forta

    >> I guess the question is not why they don't
    >> give more support but why they removed it.

    That's a valid question, Dani. Truthfully, that's one the Dreamweaver team should answer. But, without actually asking them this specifically, I'll give you my best answer based on what I know of Dreamweaver priorities.

    As I noted previously, over the years Dreamweaver got bigger and more bloated with each release. Nothing was ever deprecated, features just kid of sat round forever. And there's a cost to that, even not updating features has a cost. Every time there is an OS update, for example, full regression testing needs to be performed. And for CF features specifically, even though they haven't changed in several DW and CF versions, they still need to be tested each time the CF server gets updated. Those are just examples, but they key is that even not updating features has a cost, and when the Dreamweaver team decided to primarily focus on CSS and client side technologies, they also made the decision to greatly simplify the product overall so as to be able to update and test and release quicker than before. And that meant cutting unused and infrequently used features.

    --- Ben

    #45Posted by Ben Forta | Aug 21, 2014, 09:29 PM