Comments on: Web Designer’s Tool Belt: Web Design Resources for Pros

By: THE MOLITOR

THE MOLITOR — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:58:46 +0000

What features does CSSEdit and Transmit have that Coda does not?

By: THE MOLITOR

THE MOLITOR — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:58:25 +0000

I know what you mean about tools being familiar.

With any tool that tries to incorporate multiple features, like Coda, it’s likely that one of the features will lack in some capacity. For me, Coda has the perfect balance of features and usability. Not too many features and not too few. Plus, you really can’t really beat the price point.

By: THE MOLITOR

THE MOLITOR — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:58:01 +0000

Wow, you’re right! “Measure It” is really cool! Thanks for sharing. I’m updating the post with this item ;-)

By: THE MOLITOR

THE MOLITOR — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:57:37 +0000

Ha, thanks for sharing ;-)

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:45:36 +0000

I used to use Coda. Then I tried Espresso.

Holy God, the difference is like night and day. Have you tried Espresso’s FTP interface? It blows Coda not just out of the water, but out of the f***ing ocean. And that’s hilarious since Panic (creators of Coda) make a dedicated FTP client.

Also, Espresso’s “workspace” feature beats Coda’s tabs HANDS DOWN. I can’t go back. Coda looks like a retarded 5 year-old after using Espresso for a week.

And let’s not forget that Coda can’t fold code and probably won’t until version 2.0. That’s a killer.

And finally, Espresso is FAST. Opens in 1 second flat on my 2.5 Ghz Macbook Pro. Coda takes 6 or 7 seconds. Opening files in Espresso FEELS faster, too.

That said, Espresso has some very irritating shortcomings:

1) You can’t drag an image from the sidebar and get an auto IMG tag. Yes, really. They forgot that. Might as well have left out the “save” command in my opinion.

2) Customizing colors for the editor is WAY easier in Coda. Espresso uses “sugar” nonsense that tries to copy CSS, but ends up being much more difficult to use.

By: THE MOLITOR

THE MOLITOR — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:48:18 +0000

I read an interesting article about Photoshop vs. Fireworks with regards to image compression...

By: Fábio ZC

Fábio ZC — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:33:13 +0000

I agree with you when u talk about Coda and Firefox. But I use Fireworks instead Photoshop (and FW is about 700 U$ more cheaper than PS).
FW is perfect for design layouts for web, fast layers, fast path tools, slices, and much more.
Obvious that you can make site with PS.. but on the same way that you can edit photos with FW.

And I use another extension for Firefox called “Measure It”, its very usefull.

By: Tim Stringer

Tim Stringer — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:08:41 +0000

I find the CSSEdit interface a bit more intuitive and convenient. Perhaps it’s partially due to the fact that I’ve been using CSSEdit for a while and that it has become a familiar tool.

Coda’s main shortcoming on the FTP side is lack of support for folder shortcuts/bookmarks. I frequently use the sidebar in Transmit for convenient access to both local and server folders and miss having this functionality on Coda. Hopefully this will be beefed up a bit in a future release. I would think it would be fairly trivial as Coda and Transmit come from the same developers.

By: Tim Stringer

Tim Stringer — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:27:25 +0000

I would add CSSEdit by macrabbit to the list. I’m a big fan of Coda as well, but still find myself launching CSSEdit when making changes to style sheets. I also find the FTP capabilities built into Coda to be a bit limited in some cases and still regularly use the Transmit FTP software.