web development and photography
Review of Panic’s Coda – One-Window Web Development for Mac OS X
I’ve recently been trialling Coda, Panic’s web development environment for Mac OSX. It currently costs $99 (about £65 at current rates) per licence, and offers a fully-featured 15-day trial before you burn your money. The version I’m looking at here is 1.6.2.
Coda sells itself as offering a complete environment for all-round web developers: somewhere to do your coding, a css tool for the design-oriented, and built-in subversion, FTP and SSH tools to transfer your masterpieces from your localhost to your live environment. In other words… an IDE (although it’s perhaps telling that it never uses that acronym in its sales pitch).
Coding
Coda offers a passable pure coding environment. It has all the basic text editing things: fancy colours, a certain amount of text completion and insertion (e.g. comment blocks). I don’t want to bore you with a list all the small details I found wanting in its text editor. Some of the bigger issues I had were lack of diff tool, and the inability to search across an entire project (or ‘site’ in Coda-speak). On the plus-side the editor did have a nice visual list of functions in your code. Macromate’s TextMate is often compared to Coda (a not entirely fair comparison, but anyway…), and to be honest in terms of code editing offers lots of things Coda doesn’t, and all the things Coda does. So, take your pick…
Styling
The css editor is pretty much what you get from tools like MacRabbit’s CSSEdit. You get to edit your css with a user-interface rather than hand-coding the stuff. That’s pretty much it. I’m left wondering just how useful Coda’s CSS tool is. If you’re proficient in CSS then do you really need a GUI to help you? If you’re not proficient in CSS then you’ll still be confused because Coda assumes you have some knowledge of how HTML and CSS work together. It’s a kind of irritating half-way house which I suppose might make life easier for half-way-house developers. I’m not sure.
FTP/SSH
One of the really nice things about Coda is that you can fiddle around with a local copy of your website and FTP it up to your live hosting account, all in a simple, integrated way. When you alter a file a little icon appears next to it in Coda’s file browser. Just click it, and off it goes. It really is very simple and easy to understand. So it has the same feature if you’re working in a more serious environment, where SSH is the only way to transfer? Erm… nope.
No quick-and-easy scp-equivalent? Let’s just stop here and digest what Coda’s all about. Those of you wondering what scp is will probably be ok with Coda. Those of you who know will probably realize that Coda’s aimed primarily at semi-pro developers who need to access hosting accounts with FTP. If you work in a professional environment where servers are locked down to such an extent that SSH is probably your only means of access, well one of Coda’s main selling points is lost.
To be fair there is an SSH terminal. My feelings are that this has been bundled to make Coda look more professional and justify a higher price-tag. Why is it any easier to click a button in Coda taking you to the terminal, than it is to switch to a terminal in a different window? Cmd-Tab? At best you might consider it a very, very minor advantage. At worst it confuses Coda and makes you wonder whether it’s trying to pitch itself at semi-pro or at professional developers. Is it for the Rails and Symfony developers out there? Who knows.
Preview window
Coda’s preview window lets you see your webpage as it would appear in a browser. Well, actually it shows you how you web page does appear in a browser, because the preview window is basically just a browser window. Again, I’m left asking the question: Cmd-Tab? Personally I found it more useful to analyze my CSS changes in Firefox + Firebug. Note too that the idea that you can review a single page of your website as a complete entity is a very out-dated and curiously amateurish one. The idea that ‘blah.php’ as a file actually renders a page of HTML is verging on the laughable: there will typically be dozens of files involved in rendering a single web page. Any serious (PHP) web developer would surely be using either home-grown code developed in a framework such as Symfony, or would be modifying available web apps such as Drupal or WordPress. The only way to view a ‘page’ in any vaguely sophisticated web app is to view it in a browser with a web server running. All this makes Coda’s preview window largely defunct. Once again, just Cmd-Tab to Firefox or something. Is it really that hard to do?
Subversion
A big selling point of Coda has been its inclusion of some kind of version control mechanism for your code. In this case subversion. The user interface is nice, although a little basic. Any checked-out code will display little icons next to the file name in the file browser. If you’ve made a change, you’ll see a little ‘M’ icon appear next to the file, which you can click to commit to the repository. It’s all very neat and rather lovely.
This does seem to be one area of Coda that works well. You will have to rely on terminal svn commands for some things, but most day-to-day stuff can be done very neatly and easily. Incidentally, TextMate includes very similar functionality. It doesn’t have the useful icons to let you know when something is out of sync with the repository, so for me Coda’s svn scores a point over TextMate here.
Conclusion
Coda looks lovely, and feels like something designed for semi-pro web developers. I can’t imagine hard-core designers and CSSers finding it particuarly useful, and hard-code programmers and coders won’t find its text-editing functionality up to scratch compared to much cheaper/free tools like TextMate, JEdit, or Eclipse. The preview window and SSH terminal features feel like a bolt-on, and honestly you’d have to be pretty lazy to find Cmd-Tabbing to another application much harder than pressing a button on Coda’s UI. The lack of integrated scp functionality will be annoying for many developers.
Coda costs $99, and could be a really useful value-for-money tool for semi-professional web developers who appreciate the convenience of having almost-TextMate, almost-CSSEdit, almost-web-browser, and SSH terminal thrown into one eye-candy package. Dreamweaver it ain’t. For starters Coda it has none of the HTML-building capability of Dreamweaver.
For about half the cost of Coda you can buy TextMate, CSSEdit, and use Firefox and an SSH terminal. Ok, you have to switch between them which is a slight inconvenience. But you do get more functionality for less cost. At the end of the day it’s all about what you’re comfortable with as a developer.
| Print article | This entry was posted by matthew on February 8, 2009 at 11:37 GMT, and is filed under development, general, php. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |



about 1 year ago
I personally use Coda everyday for front-end development. Aptana Studio is a good alternative albeit a bit heavy on the features. MacRabbit’s Expresso (still in beta) may actually more to my taste. http://macrabbit.com/espresso/
I never use the CSS edit tool, it seems very unnecessary. The only issues I have with Coda is the lack of inbuilt diff tools and a reformatter for, at least, CSS.
Of everything I’ve tried nothing comes close to Coda’s productivity and effectiveness. From a personal perspective it will be a tall order to find a front-end development tool better than this.
about 1 year ago
Hi Egor,
Yes I’m sure Coda does a great job for many people. I suppose this was just my personal take, and I was a bit frustrated that it didn’t do those extra few things that would’ve made it *really* useful for me. eg. SSH access. It’s so *nearly* a brilliant piece of software, but for me I’ll continue using TextMate and an SSH terminal for now.
Espresso does look interesting though, and I’ll give the beta a try. Cheers!
about 1 year ago
@matthew
You have a good point. Coda’s strength and weakness is that is does what is does for its target audience very well. No more, no less. And there lies the rub. Panic, the developers of Coda, may have problems finding the users Coda was built for. Your story is not an uncommon one. They, I suspect, will broaden the applications features and fix some of the UI quirks to have a better fit for more users. They’ve kind of suggested as much for version 2.
Btw. It took me a while to warm to Coda, being a long time BBEdit fan and all.
about 1 year ago
Coda certainly looks really nice, from a purely eye-candy point of view. And part of me really wants to use it and for Coda to be a success. Let’s hope, as you suggest, that for version 2 Panic try to broaden Coda’s scope to appeal more to people like me!
about 1 year ago
“No quick-and-easy scp-equivalent?”
Umm….Coda does support SFTP??
about 1 year ago
Sorry, my mistake. Coda does indeed have sftp. @Blake Acheson
about 1 year ago
I’m also poking at Coda and evaluating it, and I’m also a TextMate user. Coda hasn’t entirely won me over, but I have to say it makes pretty steady progress. Coda 1.5 was quite a leap over Coda 1.0/1.1, and the plugin architecture that 1.6 brought with it is pretty promising.
One thing I’ve noticed: yours isn’t the first review I’ve come across to mention that Coda can’t search multiple files, but at least in 1.6.x, it can! There’s a “Find -> Find in Files…” command which lets you select between searching in all open files, searching recursively in the top level directory of the sidebar, or searching recursively in the local copy of the currently selected site. It seems a bit faster than TextMate’s equivalent, too.
about 1 year ago
@matthew
I’d say actually that the whole work machine / SVN repository / SFTP publish cycle is one of Coda’s biggest strengths. I’ve never tried using FTP as I (like you it sounds) do pretty much everything via SSH. Regardless I’ve found Coda to be one of the quickest work environments for pure XHTML / CSS / JavaScript sites. The biggest weaknesses I’ve found have been with more complicated server set-ups; the sort of thing where one has to work with code and resources outside the HTTP-accessible areas in addition to the more regular stuff. If you’ve ever done work with Zope, Plone, Twisted, or pretty much anything that one would be apt to be building / deploying with buildout.
about 1 year ago
Actually, I should really re-write my blog post above. Since writing it, I’ve started using Coda more and more, and found it to be a very handy piece of kit. I still find that svn is a little limited, although the excellent Versions seems to do most of the stuff Coda leaves out (eg creating repositories, tags, etc.)
I think TextMate is still a far better text editor, and I tend to use it to edit single files rather than whole projects. I also really love the way TextMate lets you look up a PHP keyword or function in the manual with a simple shortcut. Coda’s books seem really slow and bloated by comparison.
So for me, TextMate isn’t really a rival to Coda. It complements it well.
Coda + TextMate + Versions + MAMP Pro makes for a really lovely web development suite!
about 12 months ago
I’m really conficted between BBEdit and Textmate and Coda. They are all really good at what they’re really good at. Example: I use BBEdit’s compare file features all the time. All. The. Time. Neither TM or Coda can touch that single feature. Yet BBEdit still feels trapped in the 90s. The interface is horrible. The autocomplete still feels a little backward to me.
Other than when comparing files, I think that almost all of Textmate’s features are smoother and probably better than BBEdit’s, but I still hate the UI. Can someone do something about all these windows? It’s really a mess.
Finally, there’s Coda, which looks terrific, and is really growing on me. I know the editor takes some knocks, but If you spend a little time making clippings, it can become a really decent editor that’s customized to you. The ‘splits’ feature is pretty nice, too. You’re right, though–there is an air of toy-ness to it. I’ll never use a CSS Gui. The books seem like a gimmick. The preview is kinda lame. But still, I’m going to keep working with it and hope v2 is on the way soon.
about 11 months ago
Well I have no experience of BBEdit. But I’d say if I now had a choice between Coda and Textmate, I’d probably go for Coda. It does cost more, but is easy to use, and looks really nice. I have to say since I’ve got into using it with svn and remote sites more, I can’t imagine how I managed before.
It’s not like Coda’s perfect, and it has some annoying little svn and file transfer issues. But it is a great environment for coding in a rapid development dev/staging setup.