A lot of today’s online HTML, CSS and JavaScript editors still feel stuck in the lightweight playground era.
They are useful for quick snippets, s...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Your points is rightfull. My advice based on real sucessfull working daily based workflow is:
Sorry my answer contain a few joke, but my method is battletested: cli based LLM and VIM as editor, do not need fancy IDE.
Fair point. And honestly, I miss some of those simpler days too.
I have been programming long enough to remember building things with very minimal editors, and there was definitely a kind of magic in that.
My point was less about fancy IDEs and more about what happens once front-end work becomes visual, iterative, and large enough that code, preview, structure, and AI all need to stay aligned.
cli based LLM use whole app context, and no mother that is backend or frontend, able to see the structure of your code, if you would like tweak the frontend then connect to your browser to LLM with MCP then able to reach web result and test your app specific parts even help to found a runtime CSS based bug.
It looks really cool, congrats for building this, really impressive ...
What you should try to do (I think) is put more effort into explaining people (potential users) what problem(s) exactly your tool is solving - problems which aren't being solved (or less effectively) by VSCode, CoPilot, Cursor, Claude Code etc ...
"Why today’s online HTML, CSS and JavaScript editors still fall short for real AI workflows" - the problem that I have is that after reading this article I still can't really answer that question ...
I kind of understand the premise of what you're saying in the article, but it's still a bit abstract ...
I mean, I think that the other (existing) tools also try to work with the code that's already there - what kind of 'magic' have you pulled off to do that in a better way, or which tangible 'features' do you have which the other IDEs don't have?
I think you need to put some effort in articulating the "value proposition" more clearly, formulate it in a succinct/concise way, and then put that on your site/app's landing page in a way that draws people in ...
If you want to get people to migrate away to a new tool, you need a crystal clear story to convince them - but, I applaud the effort, it looks really impressive ...
This is a very good point.
I come from development, not marketing, so translating what I feel clearly while building into a sharp value proposition is honestly a challenge for me.
Your comment is spot on. I need to make that much clearer and more concrete. Really appreciate it.
Maybe put a simple landing page in front of your app (users will see it only once - you set a cookie or something) with a clear/simple message (I can't tell what the message should be, that's what you need to think about a bit ...) and a big button which they click, and then the app itself appears ...
Thanks, that was a really helpful point.
I updated the post and switched the link to the landing page instead of the direct app link.
I had temporarily disabled the first-visit cookie flow, but I’ll bring it back in the next version so the onboarding is clearer.
Landing page:
CodVerter AI Web Editor
Yes - that looks excellent!
Super strong 'slogan' (header):
"Start with AI. Continue with code."
and "how does it work":
"Generate, edit, preview and organize HTML, CSS, JavaScript and assets in one structured cloud workspace."
and "who is it for" (target audience):
"Built for people who want AI speed without giving up control."
Yes, now we're talking ... great stuff, congrats!
Thanks, I really appreciate it. That means a lot, and your comments were genuinely very helpful.
Feels like the problem isn’t the editors themselves, but the model they’re built on.
They assume “editing files”, while AI workflows are more about managing context and intent.
That’s why you still end up re-explaining things or fighting what the model remembers.
At some point the editor becomes the bottleneck, not the tool.
Curious if this gets fixed — or replaced entirely.
That is a really interesting way to frame it, and I think you are pointing at something broader than front-end alone.
A lot of the friction probably is context and intent management, not just file editing. But to me that is also why the winning workflow is still human plus model, not model alone.
The model can carry a lot of local detail, but the human still needs to understand the domain, hold the larger direction, and make the real decisions. Otherwise it quickly becomes a black box.
One thing I keep noticing is that people judge AI coding tools by first output, but for real front-end work the harder test is what happens on the second, third, and tenth edit.
Curious what tends to break first for other people once a project becomes real: structure, styling consistency, preview trust, or just loss of control?