News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FrontPage: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly by arexxbifs on Thursday November 26, 2020 @07:59AM (#25219643)
It was generally considered bad because it (and other programs like it) often generated bad markup with a lot of overhead, spurious tags and what you might call "bloat". While there's certainly bloat today too it was a different experience on dialup, especially in the early days when you paid not only for the phone call but were also often charged a steep hourly rate by the ISP.

There was also quite a bit of elitism and protectionism about it, because for a while a lot of people were actually more or less making a living from writing nothing but plain HTML. If anyone can make a web page, what good are HTML skills? Quickly, let's find something bad about it and save our jobs!

Re:FrontPage: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly by rbanffy on Thursday November 26, 2020 @10:18AM (#25220712)
> often generated bad markup with a lot of overhead,

I just looked into the nightmarish tree of nested div's and span's (of which FrontPage and DreamWeaver are innocent) that's a Twitter feed. JFC, I don't want to ever have to scrape one.

Re:FrontPage: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly by ChrisMarshallNY on Thursday November 26, 2020 @09:53AM (#25220485)
I used Dreamweaver, back in the day.

You could have it produce outstanding markup, but that meant spending a lot of quality time, playing with the templates.

Re:FrontPage: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly by drivingmenuts on Thursday November 26, 2020 @10:22AM (#25220749)
I mostly used it for its preview capabilities and as a text editor, for which it worked pretty well, building my own templates by hand. If you actually knew HTML, CSS and a smattering of JS, it was a great tool for organizing the small bits and pieces of a web site. If you didn’t, things could get ugly pretty fast.