Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Software, Internet Tools
Shawn Blanc examines Panic's Coda
Shawn Blanc continues his outstanding series of Mac software reviews by looking at Coda, the all-in-one web worker's application from Coda (we've mentioned Coda several times). He explores Coda's performance as a text editor, CSS editor, FTP client and more, while extolling the little touches like the Clips feature:"You can save any text you want as a "Clip"... [which feature] a Global database as well as a site-specific database...."
We love Coda, too, as well as Shawn's comprehensive -- even exhaustive -- explorations (somehow, "review" seems inadequate). Have fun reading, and if that doesn't convince you to purchase Coda, we don't know what will.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Brady Kent said 3:21PM on 1-21-2008
Isn't Coda made by Panic, not by Coda???
Reply
Joseph said 5:03PM on 1-21-2008
"we don't know what will"
Are you serious? Coda might suffice for guys managing mostly static sites, but it falls painfully short when it comes to building dynamic sites. Its code editor doesn't hold a candle to TextMate, and for those of us who aren't Transmit whipping-boys, the FTP client comes up short, too. One-window is great in theory, but for this coder the result isn't any larger than the sum of its parts.
Reply
DJCarbon43 said 6:50PM on 1-21-2008
Hmm,
as someone who is pretty well versed in dynamic site building I have to ask you, what exactly do you mean "it falls painfully short"?
I'm a smultron, cyberduck, webkit person, but I'm really starting to appreciate what Coda can do.
It isnt pretending to be the best tool for everything, but I'll tell you this, it knocks the socks off of dreamweaver. And it excels at what it was designed to do.
And no, I am not a transmit "whipping-boy"...
Joseph said 6:59PM on 1-21-2008
DJCarbon43: If it suits your needs, more power to you. I'm just annoyed at how blogs like TUAW and others pick an app like Coda and start trumpeting it like it's "the" solution for whatever problem it attempts to solve. Coda is great for people who might otherwise use DreamWeaver.
It falls "painfully short" in the one area where I would need it to be stronger than anything else: text editing. I could forgive all of its other failings were it not for an embedded text editor that is fundamentally less capable than its alternatives. But setting that aside, is having one window worth giving up CSSEdit? Is one window worth giving up iTerm? Or your FTP client of choice? It'd be one thing if it really excelled in some core areas, but there are exactly two things that I see Coda being really brilliant at: 1. Having 1 Window, and 2. Being pretty.
Travis Bell said 9:50PM on 1-21-2008
Joseph, I agree completely, and you and I are not the only ones. I know 4 other programmers who have all said the same thing about Coda's text editor. It doesn't hold a candle to the power of TextMate.
I also agree that I too would forgive most of it's other misgivings if it was even 1/2 the text editor TextMate is.
Anyone out there who wants to truly argue this hasn't even scratched the surface of what TextMate can do. Spend 2 years with TextMate's bundles, and advanced functionality and you'll be seeing text editors in a completely different light.
Panic probably chose to base Coda's text editing on SubEthaEdit because while it's simple, it works for basic needs and would have surely been cheap.
DJCarbon43 said 10:38PM on 1-21-2008
Well, I just fail to understand the whole leeter than though attitude of textmate users. Sure, its great, thats true...but it doesn't mean that we have to put down other editors.
I feel like this is VIM vs. EMACs all over again.
I don't have textmate, but I do have Smultron (a fine (and free!) texteditor) which I've used for the better part of two years. I own CSSEdit (which IS fantastic). I just really am starting to appreciate the blazing simplicity and integration Coda offers. I don't think it is better than CSSEdit at CSS, and I wish it could do sitewide find and replace like Smultron, but when It come down to updating a site on the fly, testing it, and making the changes live it is marvelous...a real eye opener.
It saves 30% of my time easily (the time I spend switching between apps and uploading to the server and going into the browser to check the changes). That is where it excels, and I challenge you to find a quicker workflow that that (I think we can agree that Dreamweaver is not a good choice).
Joseph said 11:11PM on 1-21-2008
@DJCarbon43: You make some good points, but in terms of overall workflow, I think saying that keeping things within a single application automatically provides for a better workflow is a stretch. A very, very long stretch, at that. Try that methodology when you're running a dual-monitor setup, and you want to make the best use of that space without unnecessary repetition. Try that methodology when your workflow includes using external applications and the frameworks built into Mac OS X to endow apps with powers they wouldn't otherwise have.
Anyone who uses an app like LaunchBar (my fave), or QuickSilver, can attest to that. Those apps can do some rather amazing things with other apps that many of them don't have to be explicitly designed to do. That allows you to reap the full benefits of the distinct apps while simultaneously reducing the overhead of using separate apps.
The bigger issue for me is that when you're a professional whose job it is to design and implement sites day in and out, the weaknesses in an all-in-one app really start to hurt. It's truly a case of the team only being as good as its weakest member. I develop web applications for a living. It's my bread, butter, and hobby. I ask a lot of my text editor, and there are a lot of good ones out there. I disagree with your assertion that this is an emacs vs. vim debate. You don't see me saying that TextMate is better than BBedit, or that SubEthaEdit is a bad text editor. I'm saying that as a text editor, Coda leaves much to be desired. That means that no matter how good and well-integrated that CSS editor is, or that terminal, the fact remains that the app for me will only be as good as its text editor. I will spend more time working around its limitations than I will save by using a single app.
The moral of the story is that convergence is a difficult thing to achieve, and if you're going to attempt it you had better have an exacting understanding of just how weak your weakest link can be.
That's what confuses me most. I don't get Coda. Not at all. It's probably way overkill for the casual iWeb-user, and it's clearly not powerful enough to lure people from TextMate, emacs, vim, etc. It sits right in the middle. That's an odd place to be.
splinter said 6:58AM on 1-22-2008
On a semi-related workflow issue, I find whether I use dreamweaver or use a combination of textmate, and CSSEdit, the big bottle neck is still testing for IE.
This being more of a hassle of course being on a mac. How are you guys testing for it? (In my case its testing CSS).
Parallels? VM Ware? What have you found to be the most efficient workflow?
Reply
Stef said 8:30AM on 1-22-2008
I am not a hard core web site programmer - I maintain a dozen or so websites, a few of them rather dynamic. Before I was working with BBedit, Fugu, Terminal and Browser to develop, test etc. my code. Then, I stumbled over Coda, and loved it from the beginning. Sure, there are some real shortcomings on the text editor side - not being able to search in all existing files of a specific folder for a word or so. But, then I still have my copy of BBedit.
But now, almost everything I have to do to develop and maintain my website I can do in one single program. And that's really a big adventure. You change a word in a file - and it's a single click to get it over to the surfer. The whole user interface is really attractive. So, I admit: I love Coda. But, I would add too: I love to see some updates... :-)
Lean Back and Relax - Enjoy some Nature Photography
http://photoblog.la-famille-schwarzer.de
Reply
Dave said 3:30PM on 1-22-2008
1. The CSS Editor can't even come close to CSSEdit.
2. The text editor is less robust than TextMate.
3. The integrated FTP has less features than Panic's own Transmit.
4. Books are useless
5. I already have a terminal.
6. It can't detect changes made to files outside the app
7. There's no live dedicated preview window (eg. CSS Edit)
8. There's no site-wide find and replace
9. The DOM inspector doesn't highlight code
10. Code coloring is still buggy.
Those ten reasons should keep me away from this app yet I find myself using it daily. Why? Because there's really nothing else like it. DreamWeaver is bloated, GoLive is dead and I don't like Freeway. Everything else on the Mac is either template based (Rapidweaver/iWeb) or more focused on app development. Coda is about the only tool that almost sorta caters to me.
It's far from perfect but it works for me.
Reply
splinter said 9:43PM on 1-22-2008
To me what it comes down to is the fundamental relationship in the process of editing, uploading and viewing.
I do find the inability to drag one file in the local view to a different directory in the remote unnecessarily cumbersome.
i.e. I shouldn't have to make sure I'm in the correct directory on the remote server before I drag the file across. I should be able to drag and hold the file on the Remote (from the local), then select a folder structure button if desired.
I would also like the tabs to be color coded. i.e. if a tab is for a remote file it could be, say, orange, and if its local it should be green. That would allow me to more easily see what a tab is, I would then probably organize my tabs with all local on the left and all remote on the right - this should/could in my opinion be a UI option in preferences.
What you reckon?
Robert Stack said 5:38PM on 6-17-2008
For the past few years, I've been quietly developing some new and exciting web authoring tools. Not available yet, but hopefully soon. Trust me they will blow your socks off. My central reason 4 developing these tools in the first place, and always will, is to provide developers with tools to make websites more accessible and fun to build. Anyway, the do-all-fit-all single app web authoring will be possible someday. It's just not here yet.
Robert
Zoshe Foundation
http://www.zoshe.net
Reply