macromedia.coldfusion.cfml_general_discussion
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Coldfusion 8 (I want it)

Subject: Re: Coldfusion 8 I want it
From: "Campag"
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:39:49 +0800
Newsgroups: macromedia.coldfusion.cfml_general_discussion
re: The OP's intent, regarding his title and his original post, is that he 
wants CF
and he is asking for justification to get CF.

What, to the point of exclding anything and everything that shows it as 
unjustifed? Seems like you are saying he should be making a slanted case 
made just to fool his boss. The OP's intent is to make a case for 
coldfusion - you can't possibly do this based on false information as this 
makes it a lie. An to be brutally honest here, most of what he has been told 
here is provably and undeniably plain wrong, mostly based on ignorance of 
other technologies and the mistaken idea that CF tags are somehow special or 
magical.

re:  What you really mean is that , "as far as you know", CF is being used 
less, in
favor of .Net.

Huh? No, this is a fact. There are way way more .net developers than cf 
developers. Never heard anyone argue otherwise. You can argue the relavance, 
but nonetheless, its fact.

re:  However, I know enough not to throw emotions into this.  Yes, I'm 
enthusiastic
about CF.  It is the be-all solution?  No.  Is .Net the be-all solution? 
No.

Is CF close to being a' Be all', No. Is .Net close to "be all", Yes. .Net 
can be used for far more than web apps and as far as tools, support, code 
libraries and practically everything else goes, it can also "be all". It's 
genuinely RAD, hence faster. Can be used with dynamic languages so is as 
simple to learn as cf, and can be used with industrial strength languages 
such as c#, so can be as complicated and powerful as you want/need it to be 
too. It's dan close to  a"be all" as one can humanly get these days.








"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> The OP's intent, regarding his title and his original post, is that he 
> wants CF
> and he is asking for justification to get CF.  You can't sell someone on a
> product's weakness.  You must sell it on its strengths.
>
> It's interesting that you make the claim that, in most cases, CF is being 
> used
> less in favor of .Net.  That is one of those broad generalizations that 
> really
> skew things.
>
> What you really mean is that , "as far as you know", CF is being used 
> less, in
> favor of .Net.  You know nothing of my environment where we are actually
> dropping other technologies in favor of CF.  However, if I made the 
> general
> claim that CF is gaining ground on other technologies, (which it is from 
> my
> personal perspective), I would then be viewed as a CF fan-boy.
>
> However, I know enough not to throw emotions into this.  Yes, I'm 
> enthusiastic
> about CF.  It is the be-all solution?  No.  Is .Net the be-all solution? 
> No.
> However, in my situation, CF is the forefront of our core web technology,
> therefore, CF *is* the right choice for me.
>
> I find it interesting that only two people actually made suggestions that 
> are
> directly related to the OP's question.
>
> I have nothing against .Net.  I think it's pretty sharp and it saved me 
> quite
> a bit of difficulty with a recent SQL Server/Active Directory project.  I 
> also
> tried my hand at CF/.Net integration during the CF pre-release program and 
> I'm
> looking forward to using more .Net integration for my development, but in 
> my
> situation, .Net will probably not replace CF.  (Note: I said "in my 
> situation".)
>
> Frank, good luck with your research of CF/.Net.
> 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>