I have been using Bootstrap Studio for half a year (bought the lifetime license, and never regretted it once) and with each new version it keeps getting better, cleaner to use and, simply put, fun.
There is just one feature that is still lacking - the ability to build an entire, complete website. Yes, you can build 95% of your website as it is now, but Bootstrap Studio still does not support the import of any other file except an image (unless i am very blind and missed something in the new updates?). I run a site that has many downloadable PDF files and i would also like to add audio files, etc. At present i have to 'blind link' my download links (link to the url that will be there), export my site then upload the entire thing manually via FTP. The new Sites feature would save me quite a lot of time and trouble (and reduce the risk of broken links) if i could just import all my files into Studio and link them like you do Images.
This is my only issue with an otherwise amazing tool - still worth every penny.
Thanks and looking forward to hearing from you.
+1000000000 ... nuff said lol
Any idea if the Devs want to do this sometime and what the issues/hurdles are that cause the feature not to be implemented?
No clue, haven't heard a yeah or nay from anyone as to whether or not this is something they plan to implement or not. Many have asked for it though over the last couple years, so I would hope it's something we will see at some point soon.
I've made a multi multi page website with the studio. (https://insaatcim.net it is only for my country)
I'm still using that project to make small changes and updates. The studio helps us to create a simple layout but if you want to make more complex, of course the studio can not help you because it is not Visual Studio Code or any other editors. Of course it needs some updates. For example we cannot add an html video, or when I want to change the locked items, I cannot until converting it an html code. But a complete working website.. It is about writing codes. BSS is a growing baby :D Give them some time. They are doing their best.
@Jo: I hope really soon!!!! I'm looking forward t manage my Websites through the creator so i don't need to worry about FTP crashes and files being missing.
@gknt93: I too have a multi-page website with, relatively soon, a built in php-run app-thing (it's a website for a Bible/ministry in South Africa). I actually prefer this to the very cumbersome VS and other programs (like GoLive/Dreamweaver from Adobe, etc). BS lets me code a simple, yet feature rich website with a minimum of crappy code and unintelligible lines hiding the html code. If i export my html to another code editor (or any text editor), i can understand everything perfectly. With the other programs it was like viewing the code to a docx document exported to HTML. Code and stuff all over the place that i can't make head or tail of.
Anyway, to the devs: Amazing program, i'll five star if you add functionality XD ;);););)
Although I don't expect to see PHP functionality added at all, per many conversations in here already on it, I can tell you that you can do your full website in here with very minimal work arounds.
@gknt93: Locked CSS entries are very much editable, all you need to do us duplicate them to your custom css file and it will override them. Pretty much the same as you "should" be doing when working with code manually, in order to preserve the original in case you need to refer back to it. Always best to do that than to overwrite original code.
Video can be added directly using the correct codes. There's no limitation on this app for that at all other than it needs to be referenced with external links or absolute links. You can also embed YouTube video with the correct code as well by using a Custom Code block and pasting the code you get from YouTube in it (I tend to make a few adjustments to it myself as well lol), and that can be seen in the Preview window too. So that part is incorrect, video is addable in BSS.
If you're looking to do elements that are locked, although it's not as simple as the CSS, you can easily recreate the items from scratch as all the element parts and attribute abilities are able to be put into new elements. You can do these either from scratch using the built in items or you can use Custom Code blocks to do it. Doing them from scratch will give you the ability to use the drag and drop options as well as edit the settings in the Options pane, while using Custom Code blocks will work great, they just will not allow any drag and drop or settings capabilities.
So the moral of the story is, BSS is capable to do all those things you say you cannot do, just not "directly" :)
Yeah, the php i'm adding in manually and thats fine as it's a complete add-on and not part of the core of my site.
"If you’re looking to do elements that are locked, although it’s not as simple as the CSS, you can easily recreate the items from scratch as all the element parts and attribute abilities are able to be put into new elements. You can do these either from scratch using the built in items or you can use Custom Code blocks to do it. Doing them from scratch will give you the ability to use the drag and drop options as well as edit the settings in the Options pane, while using Custom Code blocks will work great, they just will not allow any drag and drop or settings capabilities."
Exactly what i've been doing;)
This is a pretty basic thing the program should support. Not that it's all that difficult to create a folder outside of BSS for additional assets, but if you have PDFs, Audio or Video files, etc, that you're hosting on your server, they should be a part of the site itself, and appear in the preview for testing purposes.
But BSS is creating a BSS file, with all ressources (images) files in it. With external ressources, like videos, etc, this won't be possible anymore, so they have to change the way this additionals assets will be managed. And this is a real work, as linking ressources is better, but your have to check at loading that every ressources are accessibles, if they have changed, and so on.
It wouldn't have to check anything at all, that would be our job to be sure that things are where we say they will be. If the app gave us the ability to connect local directories, we could then start using relative URL's for those locations as well as those in app. If the location is incorrect, that's our problem not the apps. It doesn't need to read anything to check it, only display it if it's referenced. In other words, if the item is there it will display correctly, if it's not it won't. No other checks that the app needs to make for that at all. It would be exactly the same as if you reference a URL that is on the server by using an absolute URL. The app doesn't know if it's there, it will only display it in the app/browser, if it is. The only difference here would be we could reference a local directory as if it were "in the app".
As a web designer/developer, we don't need it to hold our hands, just give us the ability to cross the street. :)
Plus this would make file management so much easier on both us and the app.
What Jo said.
Basically, that's how Pinegrow handles assets. BSS devs would gain much from studying Pinegrow and vice-versa, because the programs have many similarities, but each does certain things better than the other.
Yes, i'm totally okay with the proposal of @Jo too, and i've also looked many times to Pinegrow (but quite expensive for my use, generally i'm working only with Brackets, BSS is here for the comfort)... But reading the forum, the ideas submitted and the developpement choices on BSS updates, i'm just not sure that the Bootstrap Studio will evolve in the sense of "power users", as Pinegrow is. Then i think that BSS will try to import, check, etc for the user, instead of just linking the ressource...