Exactly, Blocs does very well indeed without an FTP. There are requests for it but I wonder if that’s just fear of the unknown driving the requests. Pinegrow doesn’t have an FTP. I seem to recall that Dreamweaver didn’t either.
Setting up an FTP is exactly the same as setting up the server in RW, so there really is no difference in operation.
💯
To make a simple video, you might want to skip Premiere Pro and use iMovie instead. Similar analogy applies to web-building.
FTP is massively helpful if it works. Maybe ship two versions. One with FTP and one without. Don’t scream. Have a third party partnership with an FTP app maker who will help (integrate with Stacks and support on the forums) and make the same amount of money as if they sold it stand alone. Just a thought.
I don’t feel super strongly about publishing and preview being included. I use them but I also would be fine using alternative methods.
My main interest is that it is quick and works well. If one of the ‘less required’ features impacts speed or reliability, I’d be happy to live without it.
There’s a marketing consideration too, though. For the many who are not following along to how this has unfolded (and the many who will come to the Stacks app after it and RW9 have long been announced), you don’t want one of these ‘missing features’ be a barrier to entry or a glaring point in someone comparing/contrasting the apps.
For example, I could see someone on saying on the other forum a year from now saying “Yeah Stacks is great but you need a whole other app just to publish your site. And there’s no offline editing - to view a small text change you have to open your browser, enable developer tools, go into responsive design mode…” etc.
Publishing is great and user-friendly - but not if it’s slow or unreliable. Same with preview - great if it works well but not if it slows things down or isnt reliable (or its redundant with a better tool the user already has - i.e. the browser). Just depends on the framing of it.
Mark: I love your idea. A partnership would be very helpful.
oh my gosh this a fun thread. i have so many comments on every post!!! 😵💫
but i think i’m gonna keep to my AMA and let you guys debate. it’s fun for me to read about all the things you guys are think of.
just know that i’m reading this whole thread. :-)
I agree on all points @Webdeersign
For the FTP functionality, I see where others are coming from. Perhaps @isaiah could partner with a dev that has an FTP client and bundle it with StacksApp. Perhaps just a watered down version that just does the publishing and not much else.
Cheers,
Erwin
Have a look here:
Ha. Yes it is and glad you are enjoying it. At the end of the day, it should be fun.
I just thought it might provide fresh insights into what Stacks App shouldn’t be. I think dulpicating everything that RW does would be to waste time on a lot of redundant things. The FTP is a good example that for the initial testing, I don’t think is required. Down the road that’s your business decision.
IMHO over the years, with no real inovation, a lot of fluff and glitter has been added to RW.
If possible, I would love to see a stacks5 for dummies And pro’s. It would be a kick ass app and serious competition and the dude deserves it😁