Thread

Espresso has been a big disappointment made only more so by the horrendous price tag. Even Coda offers much more. I had high hopes for Espresso because CSS Edit is sooooooo good.

Sigh.

I’m with you, Ronnie. It’s a skinned TextEdit with a crappy DOM inspector on the side. I was excited when I got the beta, after having read about it and having used CSSEdit for a while. But then… well, nothing.

Yep, it’s the most disappointing piece of software of the year (so far).

There are basic rules of thumb when entering a market with a new product. If you have only the same features as other, more established, and popular products, then the new product needs to have more features, better features, or lower price. Or, pick any two.

Espresso doesn’t have anything that’s better except a heritage from CSSEdit, which is best of class for Mac CSS editing. Espresso is NOT best of class, not less expensive, not heavier with features, not easier to use, therefore, not really competitive, so—why bother?

Frankly, a decent text editor with live WebKit preview simply tacked on to CSS Edit would make a lot of web site developers very happy.

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one disappointed with Espresso. I was desperate to try out the beta cos it looked so good, but went back to TextMate after about 20 mins as there was no compelling reason not to.

I’m not going to lie - I was totally “oogled” when I first saw the Espresso interface and the code highlighting… but beyond that, I’m really not seeing it as a useful tool. Ronnie was definitely bang on.

The way of managing “projects” just seems odd and unproductive and the code update-publishing review concept is really frustrating when you’re trying to test things out and make small changes quickly.

I guess there’s always hope for a version 2…

As of now, Coda > Espresso.

As of now, Coda > Espresso.

Pretty much. When it comes to CSS, CSSEdit > anything else so far.

As it works out these days, I spend much more time in CSS than XHTML, so once a site’s layout is in place there’s not much coding that cannot be handled manually, even in a template window.

Still, it would be nice to have an editor that functioned as well as CSSEdit does but is also strong on Snippets, Project organization, with a variety of coding modules. I have of a need for PHP, Javascript, et al, as I do for CSS and XHTML—even more so for Snippets.

RIght now it’s a huge pain bouncing between three or four applications to do code.

For me, coding all CSS by hand does the job. I find that using a graphical interface for CSS only slows me down. Firebug + hand made CSS is the fastest workflow, and with Coda, it’s all in one application and a perfect interface for remote editing files.

That’s why I still haven’t switched to TextMate for developing websites, but only coding applications, extensions etc.

Coming in late on the discussion here but I am always surprised how any designer/developer doesn’t do their CSS by hand.

Coming in late on the discussion here but I am always surprised how any designer/developer doesn’t do their CSS by hand.

Things have changed through the years. Most development these days doesn’t require much of an XHTML editor, so most of what I do is by hand, or, at the very least, copy and paste (lots of that).

Since many sites are heavy with CSS I still start with copy and paste, then use CSS Edit to flesh it out, but all tweaking I do by hand unless I run into something less common, then it’s back to the editor.

We need to remember that not every site developer spend 12 hours a day in front of a screen using vi or emacs. If the tool does the job, use it. It pays from time to time to check out other tools, though.

I absolutely love CSSEdit and was excited to see the same developer working on an editor (though I would have preferred a simple editor with preview to be bolted onto CSSEdit). The result was Espresso which is worse than anemic. Coda is in no danger.

Oh, I absolutely agree RonnieMc, whatever gets the job done. Not really negatively judging folks who use a graphic editor, I just am genuinely surprised. For the record I own CSS Edit, though I never use it. I do use Coda but it’s all the “Site’s” management page, “Edit”, and “Preview” window.

I tried the beta of Espresso, I just can’t see jumping anytime soon. Though Coda has it’s own shortcomings, it works fine at the moment.

I wish code folding would make an appearance on Coda. It’s a pain in the arse not having it!!

I absolutely love CSSEdit and was excited to see the same developer working on an editor (though I would have preferred a simple editor with preview to be bolted onto CSSEdit). The result was Espresso which is worse than anemic. Coda is in no danger.

I’m late this continuing discussion, but I’m glad to see it’s not just me who is disappointed with Espresso. I quickly downloaded the beta, expecting ... I don’t know, something nice. But it didn’t take long for me to go, “Meh.” I don’t even play with it any more. CSSEdit and TextWrangler make my world go round.

I took the plunge and gave Espresso another go, this time in its 1.0 state. I’ve really tried to like it, but I just can’t. To see the difference, I downloaded Coda as well, but I find that lacking too.

I think my usual workflow has biased me against these types of programs. It’s almost as if they want to do too much for me, and usually things I don’t need.

CSSEdit is a dream, and I basically design my sites with that, adding the limited HTML I need using TextWrangler, a plain but powerful text editor. When it’s ready, I take a page apart, separating out the areas I want to use as embeds and basic templates, then upload those to EE. Then I set about coding for EE to produce the content I’ve designed for.

About the only thing I miss is some EE auto-completion, like Espresso is supposed to have with its EE Sugar. (I couldn’t get that to work. I think. There was nothing I could find that outlined exactly how it should work.)

For now, I think I’ll save my cash and keep doing what I’ve been doing.  😊

CSSEdit is a dream, and I basically design my sites with that, adding the limited HTML I need using TextWrangler, a plain but powerful text editor.

That’s pretty much my approach. I’m using mostly XHTML and very little of that. Everything else is CSS, which makes CSSEdit your friend.

When it’s ready, I take a page apart, separating out the areas I want to use as embeds and basic templates, then upload those to EE. Then I set about coding for EE to produce the content I’ve designed for.

Ditto. And it makes the workflow much smoother, fewer disruptions, since most heavy lifting is in CSSEdit which displays changes in real time. Tweaks to the EE code or XHTML can be done by hand, even in an EE template window.

For now, I think I’ll save my cash and keep doing what I’ve been doing.

I hear you. Espresso has been the biggest disappointment of 2009 (well, that and the stock market). Coda is for programmers, not so much for site developers. A good text editor with preview, and CSSEdit make for a pleasant day.