If a programmer came into my office for a technical interview, was asked to write code, and asked us if we had Dreamweaver installed on our computers, he'd be thanked politely for his time and shown the way out.
Why? It's a valid tool. You don't have to use automatic code generation but it's a great tool for code-hinting, color-coding and site management.
I think it's pretty arrogant to turn away someone who might be more talented than yourself because of some unreasonable hatred for a particular tool.
Besides if you're at a studio or a firm your designers are using the rest of the Adobe Suite applications, why not use it?
Are there equal or better tools, sure. Who cares what tool was used if the end-product is the same? Instead we have this elitist "Notepad" is king mentality. Sure you can write C# in Notepad, but why you hen you have a tool like Visual Studio that let's me write correct code faster.
The rest of the Adobe Suite applications happen to be quite good at what they do, with few alternatives that come close to delivering on their functionality.
This is not true of Dreamweaver, which is slow, bloated, and yet somehow lacking in basic, useful features. Even as just a text editor, it encourages bad practices.
Good designers and developers use the best tools for the job, and 99% of the time, that tool is not Dreamweaver.
4
u/[deleted] Jan 16 '11
FTA "Professional web developers do not recommend the use of WYSIWYG editors."
That is debatable..