Review: Espresso 1.0
Editor: Espresso
Version: 1.0.1
Developer: MacRabbit
Platform/OS: Mac
WYSIWYG: No
Price: 59.95 Euros
MacRabbit’s newly released Espresso has clearly been positioned as a rival to Panic’s Coda (review), with each striving for one-window web development supremacy on the Mac. What’s interesting about comparing these two apps, however, is their different approaches to what’s essentially the same basic functionality. Each program is defined by its heritage: Coda shares a lot of its DNA with Transmit, featuring powerful FTP and project management tools. The weakest part of Coda is the text editor. Espresso, on the other hand, is CSSEdit’s much more multi-faceted younger sibling and it has learned many of CSSEdit’s tricks, plus a slew of new ones. As a result, Espresso’s strongest feature is the text editor.
What I Like
Like most Mac software I use, Espresso has a lovely GUI. What I especially like is that it keeps everything in a single windows rather than using detached palettes/inspectors.- The DOM Inspector/Code Navigator (pictured). Lets you find and easily select blocks of code.
- The code folding. While not a feature I use that often, I really like how Espresso’s code folding is handled, the controls only showing up when you hover over them in the gutter. The folded text also stands out really well.
- Unlike most editors out there, Espresso has smart indenting for soft-wrapped text.
- Espresso has CodeSense/code completion for HTML, CSS, PHP, Javascript, etc. Additional languages can be added.
- Sugars. If Espresso by default doesn’t support a language you work in, you can create a Sugar (plug-in) for that language. For example, I downloaded and installed Anthony Short’s ExpressionEngine sugar, which gives you access to the EE template syntax (through snippets and CodeSense). There are Sugars for jQuery, Ruby, Django, and others, as well, hosted at the Coffee House.
- Themes. Espresso makes it really easy to create and install themes for the text editor. In fact, the themes are just CSS files that you can place in the ~/Library/Application Support/Espresso/Themes/ directory. Editing themes also happens in real time, so you can see the effects of your changes as you make them.
- Snippets. While TextMate still rules the roost when it comes to snippets, Espresso’s snippets are still pretty powerful. I just wish there was a help file to show me how to get the most out of them…
Gripes
- Probably one of my biggest gripes is that there is currently no manual or help file for Espresso, online or off. While I normally don’t spend a lot of time using a manual and enjoy figuring things out on my own, sometimes I want a quick reference to find out how to do something (like how to edit snippets, for example).
- Espresso features column selection and the ability to select multiple items by holding down Command, but I can’t edit all my selections at the same time the way I can in TextMate.
- I was going to gripe about the price, but it’s actually about $20 USD cheaper than Coda. You can also get a discount if you already own CSSEdit. Espresso is also a part of MacHeist, though it’s not clear whether or not it will get unlocked.
- In Coda, if you double-click on an image in the Project panel, it will preview in the editor. In Espresso, nothing happens when you double-click on an image.
- Espresso only seems to auto-complete parentheses/brackets in CSS documents, not in PHP documents.
- Espresso doesn’t recognize CSSEdit’s comment syntax for grouping items in the Navigator.
- Also missing from CSSEdit is the X-ray feature. Mind you, if you added all of CSSEdit’s features into Espresso, maybe no-one would buy CSSEdit.
- No “Find in Files.”
- Unlike Coda, there isn’t a single place where you can see all of your projects at once.
Overall
Like Coda before it, Espresso shines for a 1.0 release and there’s definitely a lot to like about this new editor. I didn’t really try out Espresso’s FTP capabilities (instead, I was using it with ExpanDrive), but the editor itself is quite solid. In fact, as a stand-alone HTML editor, I’d say Espresso already has the edge over Coda and is doing well to imitate some of TextMate’s text editing abilities. However, it’s still very early in Espresso’s development and it’s as yet missing features that would make it the killer app for me. Given some time, though, Espresso could very well be one of the best HTML editors around.
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Just to get it out there first: I’m a Sugar developer for Espresso, not an employee. I’m currently writing the Ruby sugar, and I’ve got a few others in the works (Rails, possibly; git, Haml, SASS, a Sugar Manager, Regex, ERb, and RSpec).
Regarding some of the things you disliked: I’m working very, very hard on Jan (the primary MacRabbit employee with whom we have at least occasional contact) to get support for delimiter balancing (what you have in the CSS sugar, but not in the rest of the sugars) and column selection.
The CSSEdit grouping would be really, really easy to implement in a Sugar. It’d take about 15 minutes to Itemize (the technical term) the CSSEdit “grouping” comments, if you cared to sit down and write, I dunno a CSSEdit.sugar?
Comment by elliottcable — April 2, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
@elliottcable: Thanks for your comments. It’s great to know that Espresso is so easily modded, though I personally am not one who looks under the hood of most things, so I probably couldn’t write a sugar so quickly. :)
As for my critiques: I realize that Espresso is very young and I fully anticipate that many of my gripes will get addressed sooner or later, especially if MacRabbit’s community continues to throw its support behind the product.
Espresso 1.0 is an excellent start and I’m very excited to see how it develops.
Comment by Eric — April 2, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
I can’t wait to see the ERb sugar…
Comment by Gerald Stangl — October 9, 2009 @ 6:18 am
Espresso looks very, very promising indeed!
I could be wrong(not a scientific test) but I feel Espresso’s FTP editing is significantly more responsive than Coda’s (which I own).
The interface seems to me more consistent design-wise than Coda’s, even though Coda is pretty good.
Will keep my eye on it for sure.
(I’m a text editor collector/fetishist. I own BBEdit9, TextMate, SubEthaEdit, Coda and SKEdit)
Comment by pedro — November 6, 2009 @ 8:47 am