Myth-busting: HomeSite is not dead, HomeSite NEQ HomeSite+, and Adobe does support Eclipse

OK... the long and short response.

1. I didn't neglect to mention it.
- CFStudio once had debugging in it. I know developers at large didn't do such things during those days. I first met Mr. Forta in South Bend, IN. It was at that meeting to my shock it became apparent people didn't use the debugger. Ben asked about it and I was one of the few people he ever had say that they used it. (Point: Adobe from my perspective gave back a feature that was taken away before the lawsuit. I missed it and think it was something that should exist. I appreciate putting it back.)
- Homesite is not in development. If CF was updated as long ago as Homesite then we would have no defense on the homesite is dead. Most of us use the current version of CF as proof that it is not dead. Homesite is more like a hall of fame tool than a living evolving product! Granted they do provide new tag sets for it... and that is great!

Now as far as Eclipse... Adobe offered CFE support and some former team members admit they dropped the ball and not Adobe. If Adobe had a team of developers drop the ball on Photoshop what would they do? They would get a new crew and prove they knew how to succeed. Adobe has a vision for Flex that proves they understood the need and power of a robust IDE. It makes one wonder why they don't seem to have the same vision for CF as they have for Flex. (Or at least enough to bring CFE farther along.) I am just making a plea for Adobe to get a vision for an IDE.

If they are throwing in the support for CFE then I would like to see more skilled development done on that. Currently I am offering some community projects of my own and respect that free work doesn't feed the kids. We need some dedicated by funding or starting an IDE of thier own. (Or supporting Aptana is another option).

I love that Aptana knows when there is an update and how to get it without me having to do that manual also. It's like this... I program sites so users don't have to think about the site if possible. We need CFEclipse to come to bear on a few issues like that.

I also did mention that DW support improves every version even if they aren't yet on target to a code/developers tool at large. It does keep getting better. I basically don't use anything other than CFE.

My concern is that new developers need something made for getting started. Us hard liners love CFE because it is the best thing out for CF. Yet, it is very possible for someone to show it up if funding was provided. :) Or perhaps funding for the current tool. A better IDE would sell more ColdFusion in the end. Its a right ROI. Right for Adobe, right for ColdFusion jobs, right for site owners who use ColdFusion... just a good thing for everybody in the community.

One (important) thing you forgot to mention Charlie: CF Studio was $499. It became HomeSite+ and was bundled with Dreamweaver and the cost dropped to $399. A lot of people complained that CF Studio had been dropped but failed to see they could now buy the equivalent, updated program for $100 LESS than it used to cost!

As for CFEclipse needing to be improved - I'd ask anyone with any complaints about it to contact Mark Drew and either volunteer time or money to help him make it better. Many of us work on Free Open Source Software and it can be a pretty thankless task at times when it seems like all people do is moan about the problems with it instead of thanking us for what benefit they get from it (and if you get no benefit... move along and stop kvetching!).

OK, boy. Lots of comment.

@Rob, great point about the fact that it was Adobe suing MM at the time. I'd forgotten that. :-) As for the debugger, though, that wasn't lost in the move to HomeSite+. It's still there, and in fact it "works" as long as you're using it with CF5 or less. Now, to be accurate, you refer to it as HomeSite, and in fact it's not in HomeSite (the product still sold) but in HomeSite+, the product only bundled with Dreamweaver. I don't know if that was a finger fumble or if perhaps, despite my rambling note above and all the others I point to, it's still easy for people to miss the distinction. :-)

@John, about "didn't neglect to mention it", are you referring to Rob's comment on the debugger? He was saying it was missing from the "conversion", not the "conversation". Don't think he was accusing you of any failing, and of course nor was I. My note was really addressing a common confusion over the "death" of Studio. BTW, I only named you in my blog entry because if I said "a commenter", it might be read that I didn't know you. And of course I do, and that's why I added "friend of the community". I didn't want it to seem I was just jumping down your throat.

The rest of the note was just a restatement of the details on the common misconceptions regarding CFS, HS, and HS+, as well as the extra info on the Adobe Eclipse extensions. Again, I wasn't meaning to deride your not mentioning the extensions. I just wanted to make the point for readers who might come up on it. Let's all admit: there are some people who read Ben's blog and no others, so to me it's imperative that any statements on his blog be as accurate as possible. :-)

As for your comments on the CF Studio debugger, I'm totally with you. I also lamented it when it was pulled--but again, not from the tool, but rather from CFMX. I was on the Customer Advisory Board at the time and was in meetings in Boston where it was discussed, and I pleaded that it not be dropped. As you note, the general feeling was that people didn't use it. I argued that it was because it was a feature buried in Studio--and look, it's so buried that perhaps some don't even realize it's still there in Homesite+. :-) Again, though, it's not something that was "taken away before the lawsuit". There was no connection, as far as I know. (And it didn't help that the debugger didn't always "work".)

As for HS not being in development any longer, I wouldn't be surprised. I was merely clarifying that HS is still sold (and HS+ was still given in DW, at least as of 8. Don't know about CS3.) As you note, though, since Adobe still provides updates to the CF tag help, insight, and edit sort of features, for some folks that's all that's needed. Like you say, the tool is a classic. Sure, it's missing some modern features, but many people still love driving their classic cars, even if they have to add a 3rd party GPS unit. :-)

As for Adobe putting such weight behind FlexBuilder as an Eclipse IDE, yet not around a CF IDE based on it, well, that's just economics I think. They needed an IDE for Flex. The only one was the first one (based on DW, if I recall, but I could be wrong). Anyway, they chose (wisely) to use Eclipse. Now, why might they hesitate to have done the same (to now) for a CF IDE? Well, we do have CFEclipse. And they have done the extensions.

More important, though, the market for a Flex IDE is much larger (cuts across all web platforms including those who use PHP, .NET, J2EE, and CF), whereas a CF IDE would only serve the CF audience.

Even then among that CF audience, you have 2 factors that would cut into *that* audience. First, there's cost: FlexBuilder is not free, which helped (along with the prospective market) to further justify the effort. Would (all) people pay for an Adobe-written Eclipse-based CF IDE?

And let's stop and think for a moment why Flex Builder is appealing. For one thing, it's the only Flex IDE, so people really have no choice. Second, it's great for what it does, especially things like the drag and drop designer-type features--but then CF people don't generally want that in an IDE--and the debugger--which we already have in the Adobe extensions for CF8. And since the debugger is really tied to the server, a "new" IDE won't make it possible to debug against CF7. That's either a technical or marketing decision having to do with the server (as was the choice to drop it after CF5).

But getting back to whether Adobe should do it, the second factor influencing their decision (it seems to me) is that--whether it was free or cheap--there's still the issue that people don't switch IDEs lightly. It's our daily tool. People get hooked to what they have and need REALLY strong motivation to change. Look at all the people still staying with CFS, HS, and DW. Just because Adobe builds it doesn't mean people will come.

I think it's a very tough decision.

As for your comment about DW continuing to be developed, well, I'd argue that most such developments are (again) to serve the much wider audience of DW users than just those using it for CF. So it's no surprise they update DW. Does that mean they're not "taking care of their own" by being motivated more by serving a larger audience than just CFers? I don't think so. Again, it's just economics.

John, you conclude with an impassioned plea about a new CF IDE being right for everyone, and I can tell you believe strongly in your case. And you make some good points (better serving total newcomers, and better "selling" CF because of a dedicated editor).

If not for that last point, I'd argue that DW does a better job serving newcomer CFML developers than many think, with respect to some code-generating features that I think a lot of "hard liners" never even notice because they dismissed DW so quickly (and MM/Adobe *has* continued to add to DW features for CFers). DW is the tool of choice in the FastTrack to CF class, which I know some will lament. Still, I always tell my students that they'll come out knowing more about it--and creating some things, like tables driven from a CFQUERY, using the "dynamic table" tool--than most of their fellow developers who may have used CF longer and do most such things by hand.

But that's not to say that a new CF-specific IDE wouldn't help better "sell" CF, nor that newcomers can't (or shouldn't) be shown using Eclipse/CFEclipse instead. In fact, in the new CF8 WACK book, we give a nod to Eclipse/CFEclipse.

Now, your next comment, John, does address the question of books, and I agree with you: I do think a book on CFE would help tremendously. I even already started discussing that with Mark, but like you I've had other tasks get in the way. This is likely something that would be served well by joint forces. Now, others have said they'd do it in just improving the docs, but maybe a book would have a different motivation/DNA, especially if it was sold. (And before people decry the selling of a book for a free tool, as John says, there are plenty of books sold on open source products.) I already had proposed to Mark that I'd give him/the project a cut in the profits of the book, as one way to repay all their efforts. Anyone else interested? Maybe a collaborative effort (just on a book) would be a great result of all this discussion. :-)

@Sean: great point about the cost factor of DW providing HS+ within it at a reduced cost over CFS. To be honest, I don't know that it was significant in the decisions of many at the time (or perhaps since), but it's certainly worth noting. Actually, I kind of look at it differently: a lot of shops using CF Studio (then and still now) sprung for DW simply as a site purchase or out of a sense of, "well, if this is going to be MM/Adobe's editor of choice for CF, I might as well resign myself". So I prefer instead to say, "hey, look, you have more there than you thought! You still have CFS there, updated a bit, for free. Go get that CD!" :-) I can tell you that many people have been so delighted to get "back" into their favored CFS-style editor in HS+.

As to your final comment, Sean, I don't know if it's directed to me, John, or just the general chorus of people kvetching about it. Let me clarify, if it may have been to me, that my beef isn't with CFE at all. Again, as I said 2 paragraphs ago, I even want to support the project with contributions from profits of a book (as well as in simply doing a book to help people in the first place). I don't use it often enough (CFE) to have felt motivated to contribute money yet, but I have even proposed some other means to Mark for me to make financial contributions through some partnerships just again because I realize how much he's done for the community (even if I don't yet use the tool much.)

My main beef is with Eclipse itself, and the inability to open a file from outside the tool, and to do it again without launching another instance. That's not something Mark can fix, and I know that many will decry that such use smacks of my being misguided. "Why would you even want to do that?", people ask. Let's just say I have my reasons, as do many others. For some, until that's fixed, they are indeed "moving on", or rather sticking with what they've got.

But I do honestly believe that a book (or class) that guided newcomers to CFE (not CF) to all its benefits and helped them navigate its minefields (meaning, differences when coming from another editor) would help immensely. Most who've made the switch have said, "I just had to stop using the other editors cold turkey and force myself to learn the new tool". No question, that works. But just as there are also smoke cessation classes, patches, and other devices to ease people out of their nicotine addiction, so too might other devices help those wanting to move off of other editors. :-)

Finally, John, you make some good points other things the CFE project could benefit from. As is always the case, it's naturally about time and money (or motivation). I don't think this entry (and these comments) will do too much to change that situation. There are plenty of discussions in other blogs and lists with CFE folks asking for that and debating solutions. But you made a good plea there for who all is needed. :-)

Lastly, about free vs paid editors in the .NET space, well, that's really a whole separate area of discussion. You've got issues of MS funding (talk about warchests), MS philosophies on how to "reach" the market (let's not go there), as well as a HUGE market that can abide and support such variety. You conclude saying that "I think you would get a market for an Enterprise IDE for CF also", but the $64,000 question for Adobe (or maybe it's a $million) is whether that "market" would be big enough to justify the effort. I think that's why we've seen such caution, trepidation, patience, or whatever else it is that's led Adobe to approach this one carefully. Some of us attended the "meet the CF team" (or was it a BOF?) last year at Max where this was discussed. I don't know that the decision is any easier now than it was then.

Perhaps one significant new factor is that sales of CF8 have been great. There's clearly renewed energy and vigor in the CF market. Perhaps if there's a time to do it, the time is now. Again, I don't think for a minute that our "little" discussion here will have any significance on that (if indeed anyone from Adobe will even be reading it). But perhaps we've reached some new people with more discussion on the related topics than they've seen before. That's the beauty of blogs: their ability to reach different audiences than other places where such topics are debated more often.

And with that, I conclude what is clearly the longest blog comment I've ever written (or perhaps even seen!) :-)

I believe Flex Builder is 500 currently. (Just checked the Adboe store.) But I like the 250 price better just the same. Personally I like the idea of creating a subscription model also. (If we had things like auto updaters that are in Aptana.)

Charlie... if we could do a combined effort you could count me in on the book concept. Count me in and contact me on that one.

I've been using CFS, HS+ for as long as I 've been CF'ing.

I switched over to DW CS3 about 3 weeks ago.

I MISS HS+ The file view pane and search tool are leaps better than DW. It's smaller and faster. I absolutely HATE the file view in DW.

If only HS+ had the timestamp warning when saving files back to the server...then it would be perfect.

CFE Book idea - might I suggest a wiki? I'm not really a fan of the wiki idea normally, but this may have more traction as a community supported development than a printed book. A printed book requires enough sales to justify a publisher's time/efforts/costs as well as distribution. Since CFE continues to change, a book would quickly be out of date (or prone to errors). A wiki could be maintained/enhanced.

If a wiki could also have screen captures and code samples built in (i.e. rough approximation of what a printed book or PDF would contain, plus errata/code downloads) then it could be a big benefit. I would be happy to view product ads in the wiki and possibly donate (paypal).

As a side note, I've had basic introductory experience with Flex Builder 2 and attempted in the last few days to build a simple 1 page application to allow editing of a 7 column database table (with no outside relations/joins). My goal - simple insert/edit/update to maintain 500-2000 rows of rather simple data for 1 table by intranet users...preferably using a flash player 9 grid (sortable columns). Do you know how difficult this is?

1) cfajax tags in CF8 don't allow inserts (per Ben Forta blog) and a solution I found has a secondary set of input fields for the insert. Hours spent, success around 90%...still not working fully

2) flex builder 3 wizard to create a grid using CRUD - failure, the Adobe solution is for PHP/Java/.Net...not CF....

3) the CF8 extensions for Flex Builder
a) flex based - not fully working but close in dev, massively difficult to port from Windows to Solaris (case sensitivity, etc.) under different directory structure
b) ajax based - not fully working, similar problems

4) CF 7/8 using cfgrid tags - slow, unwieldly, not yet working right, and uses Flex 1.5 based actionscript/objects

5) numerous code generators & sample code files on web in CF using cfc's, etc. - partially working but not really

Something is WRONG when a seasoned developer tries off and on for a few days to create something so simple using relatively new technology (versus me just coding the pages in normal CF code without using CFCs) and fails miserably to do so.

I've seen countless demos of CF Eclipse, Eclispe based debugging of CF8 and Flex Builder 2/3 demos & some training. It should NOT be this hard to create a simple 1 page application! A Wiki on CFE, another on debugging CF8 in Eclipse, an intro on Eclipse, etc. could potentially be very helpful.

One other thought on all this: the reason MM chose to stop using the CF Studio name was due to the conflict with Studio MX, which now itself no longer exists. I wonder if perhaps any new Adobe CF IDE could indeed revive the old, trusted name. :-) Could be pros and cons, of course.

Two answers:

1) The cfmlrepo.com site, managed by trusted members of the cf community, keeps old installers for cf and related things, including HS, and indeed 5.5. The site uses Google drive as its repo. See cfmlrepo.com for more, then specifically:

https://drive.google...

2) It's time to move on, and though the next cf ide, cf builder, never grabbed the hearts of cf studio/homesite users (for many reasons), the NEW cf builder released last year as an extension for vscode should feel far more comfortable. BOTH ARE FREE, and lightweight (fast-starting and simple to use).

I'll try to do a post for that audience. Until then, just give it a try. Google will readily get you the links.