38 comments

  • Todd Smith-SalterTodd Smith-Salter, almost 7 years ago

    His testimonials are pretty cheeky. Testimonials

    5 points
  • Ryan LeFevreRyan LeFevre, almost 7 years ago

    Looks really nice, but I'm way too stubborn to give up the command-line for stuff like this yet :)

    5 points
    • Daniel WilberDaniel Wilber, almost 7 years ago

      Same. I used Codekit for a while but trying to keep a team of designers and developers on the same page without a standard command line build process was costly and complicated.

      We're still using grunt.

      1 point
    • Marc Edwards, almost 7 years ago

      Looks really nice, but I'm way too stubborn to give up the command-line for stuff like this yet.

      Yeah. I think for those who are now using and love Grunt, this may not stick (or for those on teams).

      1 point
      • Blake PerdueBlake Perdue, almost 7 years ago (edited almost 7 years ago )

        Yeah, I've found Grunt more powerful, flexible and faster. Instead of launching Codekit and waiting while it loads and scans a bunch of files in my projects, I run one command line in terminal and immediately Grunt is ready to work.

        After switching, I'll never go back to Codekit. Grunt FTW!

        1 point
  • Pascal MolletPascal Mollet, almost 7 years ago

    The app indeed looks nice. But I'm also became fond of some terminal action. You should check out gulpjs.com or gruntjs.com. Both have great communities and possibilities.

    3 points
    • Jonathan YapJonathan Yap, almost 7 years ago

      I feel the same way, I got into grunt and now testing out gulp. I'm torned between the 2 options before but sometimes having a GUI does help.

      0 points
  • Tony GinesTony Gines, almost 7 years ago

    Damn. Just bought version1.9 a couple months ago. Gotta pay to upgrade.

    2 points
    • Thibault MichelThibault Michel, almost 7 years ago

      I'm in the same boat as you man. I'll try to feel my way around Grunt like other people have suggested before deciding on this new update though.

      1 point
    • Marc Edwards, almost 7 years ago

      Damn. Just bought version1.9 a couple months ago.

      Surely you knew that 2.0 would come after 1.9? And hopefully you’ve used version 1.9 on some paying projects and got your money’s worth.

      2 points
    • Jonathan YapJonathan Yap, almost 7 years ago

      If you got it in december, you are warrant a free upgrade. Other than that, pretty much have to pay to upgrade.

      0 points
  • Ryan KrugRyan Krug, almost 7 years ago

    While definitely not even in the realm of CodeKit features, I've really enjoyed using a Sass Plugin I wrote for Coda. Just compiles your scss to css on save but doesn't require installing Ruby or using the command line.

    1 point
  • Eliot SlevinEliot Slevin, almost 7 years ago

    http://puu.sh/7lDWk.png

    best part

    1 point
  • Mathieu MayerMathieu Mayer, almost 7 years ago

    Bryan is selling his app for $29 per copy but it seems he hasn't purchase a legit copy of Sublime Text yet.

    1 point
  • Will FroelichWill Froelich, almost 7 years ago

    I bought Codekit 1 and as I found things I thought it was supposed to do I submitted them as issues only to be told "coming in codekit 2" So while the internal tools (bower, sass, etc) are opensource and free, you'll be waiting for codekit 3 and an additional $30 to use a new tool.

    You will be better served by spending the 1-2 hours it takes to learn how command line build tools work.

    I recommend Grunt with lib-sass and uglify for pretty much what Codekit does.

    1 point
    • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, almost 7 years ago

      you'll be waiting for codekit 3 and an additional $30 to use a new tool.

      I think that’s unfair, given the number of updates provided for CodeKit 1. Also, this is a professional tool. If you’re making money building websites, $30 every few years is extremely reasonable.

      You will be better served by spending the 1-2 hours it takes to learn how command line build tools work.

      What value do you place on 2 hours of your time? Grunt is awesome, but that doesn't mean CodeKit isn't awesome.

      Even if CodeKit uses tons of open source to get its work done, I have no issue paying $30 for a great frontend UI to control them.

      0 points
      • Will FroelichWill Froelich, almost 7 years ago (edited almost 7 years ago )

        What value do you place on 2 hours of your time? Grunt is awesome, but that doesn't mean CodeKit isn't awesome.

        That's not fair though. An investment in Codekit would be like me investing in Dreamweaver. Sure, Dreamweaver might do some fun stuff, and I might even end up being the best at Dreamweaver; but that doesn't mean I end up knowing or understanding the code that Dreamweaver creates. I would learn more and become better at my profession; therefore, becoming worth more; therefore, increasing my hourly value by investing in myself and not a fancy app.

        I have zero issue with paying for software, especially when it saves me time. My issue was that is did buy Codekit 1 and was burned. Mostly, I realized that if I had just invested a bit of time learning even one build tool I would have saved myself a lot of time trying to get someone else's view of how my project should be organized to match my own vision.

        Finally, having the build process rely on both a Mac and having Codekit installed isn't going to win you any goodwill. When you are able to share that you know (make / grunt / rake / etc) during an interview, you are going to be in a better position, and again, increase your dollar worth.

        0 points
        • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, almost 7 years ago

          that doesn't mean I end up knowing or understanding the code that Dreamweaver creates.

          That’s not a fair comparison — CodeKit works with all the stuff you’d likely use with or without it: HTML, Sass, Markdown etc. The code you need for CodeKit is pretty much the same as the code you need without it.

          My issue was that is did buy Codekit 1 and was burned.

          You were not.

          You received an app that did what it said on the tin. If you bought it late in the cycle, you should have known that a major update could be coming soon. I think the onus is on the purchaser when it comes to buying software late in the product cycle.

          Would you prefer your software was a subscription? That would solve the issue you’re talking about, but is worse (in my opinion) for other reasons.

          I realized that if I had just invested a bit of time learning even one build tool I would have saved myself a lot of time trying to get someone else's view of how my project should be organized to match my own vision.

          That’s a fair point and after playing with CodeKit a bit, I definitely have some issues with the way it builds — I don’t like the optimised and converted files sitting next to the source files. I prefer a build folder with the result.

          Finally, having the build process rely on both a Mac and having Codekit installed isn't going to win you any goodwill.

          Sure, but you have to admit that may not matter to some people.

          1 point
          • Will FroelichWill Froelich, almost 7 years ago

            I was burned because I thought this would solve my problem and it only made things more complicated. For what it's worth, I did end up learning Grunt because Codekit wouldn't work for my project. Basically, I paid $30 to find that out. I didn't even request a refund because it wasn't really CK's fault and I don't mind supporting small dev shops. I thought posting my experience here might give someone a little encouragement to better themselves.

            FWIW, I submitted a support issue one year ago and was told the answer was v2. If v2 just now shipped, I'm glad I didn't wait around.

            0 points
            • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, almost 7 years ago

              I was burned because I thought this would solve my problem and it only made things more complicated.

              There’s a free 10-day trial, so I don’t think you can blame Incident 57 for that.

              I submitted a support issue one year ago and was told the answer was v2. If v2 just now shipped, I'm glad I didn't wait around.

              Fair enough.

              Btw, I’m playing with Grunt now. Trying to learn how it all works. :)

              1 point
    • Manik RatheeManik Rathee, almost 7 years ago

      That maps to what Codekit 1 did. Codekit 2 has far more features. You should definitely take a longer look at the marketing site and see the rest of the features.

      1 point
  • Nathan ManousosNathan Manousos, almost 7 years ago

    Yes, I love steroids! Perfect!

    1 point
  • Tyson SoelbergTyson Soelberg, almost 7 years ago

    Some really great updates in this version, but I'm afraid there has been some major regressions in the live reloading feature. A handful of my projects use $_SERVER vars in routing and environment detection; this fails catastrophically while using the Bonjour URLs. In even more projects, our .htaccess files rely heavily on mod_rewrite which periodically use some of those same $_SERVER vars; again, broken when using the Bonjour URL.

    I (bought and) absolutely love CodeKit 1, so I'm not complaining so much as just expressing some concerns with the direction of version 2. Initially, I felt that Hammer was heavily biased towards static sites, whereas CodeKit was much more implementation agnostic.

    All that said, I'll buy v2 to support Bryan. He's been stellar about support and I hope more one-man dev shops follow his example.

    1 point
    • Tim GauthierTim Gauthier, almost 7 years ago

      For those situations I still use mamp or pow. I would like to have Jekyll support though. Get rid of having a terminal window open. Since I am not pâté bought to make Jekyll compile my sass yet.

      0 points
      • Tyson SoelbergTyson Soelberg, almost 7 years ago

        I'm not sure you quite grasp the issue. Serving the content is always done by an external server. That doesn't solve the issue when masking a meaningful URL with the .local Bonjour URL that version 2 depends on.

        0 points
        • Tim GauthierTim Gauthier, almost 7 years ago

          you are correct, my bad. Yeah I have never run into that for my own dev work. I mostly have been using KirbyCMS which lets me set ANY url, so i'll just wildcard .local for my config file and be done with it. That is a shame for you guys though. I had some issues purchasing my upgrade, Bryans store wouldn't work for my country. I hit him up on twitter and he got me sorted out in a bespoke solution. Perhaps he has some options with you.

          you know you can use your IP instead of just the bonjour address too, would that work for your solution?

          0 points
  • Tobias ReichTobias Reich, almost 7 years ago (edited almost 7 years ago )

    CodeKit 2 looks very promising. Another alternative is Hammer, which has a lot of similar feature and works great, too. I like the idea to have a separate build-folder, which includes all compiled files.

    1 point
    • Clark WimberlyClark Wimberly, almost 7 years ago

      I loved Hammer but I'm a little bummed they don't support Compass. I'm still tinkering with Codekit but at least he supports a pretty wide range of kits.

      1 point
    • Jonathan YapJonathan Yap, almost 7 years ago

      I manage to get codekit 1 and hammer to work together, but you'll have to setup multiple folders and have codekit concatenate (JS/CSS) and output it to the hammer folder and let hammer do its magic.

      0 points
    • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, almost 7 years ago

      Another alternative is Hammer, which has a lot of similar feature and works great, too.

      Yeah, I really like Hammer. It’s a shame it isn’t as feature rich though. Lots of the things I want in Hammer seem to be in CodeKit.

      Cactus is another good alternative. I’ve bought Hammer and Cactus and will buy CodeKit. I want to see all three flourish.

      I like the idea to have a separate build-folder, which includes all compiled files.

      I like that as well.

      0 points
  • Daniel LeaveyDaniel Leavey, over 6 years ago

    A lot of folks have mentioned the great service at Code Kit. I found that to be true when V.1 was available, but with V.2, I can't even find an email address for Brian. How are you now obtaining technical support.

    0 points
  • Vincent Le MoignVincent Le Moign, almost 7 years ago

    Codekit 1 is an essential part of my webdesign workflow, and a great app. Bryan care a lot about the quality , always trying to improve it. I will happily buy the V2, even if I'm not sure it will make a big difference for me (just using it for Jade + Stylus).

    And well, I love these weird testimonials and sarcastic humour on Twitter ;-)

    0 points
  • Marc Edwards, almost 7 years ago

    I’m freaking out about CodeKit 2. This looks so damn good. Trial downloaded. I will buy it. Bryan sounds like a nice guy, too.

    Oh, and check out the version history — tons of features and fixes over the life of version 1. Yep, I’m in.

    0 points
    • Jordan KoscheiJordan Koschei, almost 7 years ago

      Yeah, the support in version 1 was really good. I've been using it for a while, and the only downside I can see is that it doesn't output to a flattened build folder like Hammer. I use Hammer for flat sites and CodeKit for anything with a backend. Both are excellent, though I'm still partial to CodeKit.

      0 points