advantages and disadvantages of ColdFusion?

re: people take notice.

Dude, look at the stats on TIOBE and Netcraft, CF is the least popular web
dev platform out there. People are hardly 'taking notice'. CF is a very
niche product, a good one mind you. But it's a stretch to say that people
are 'taking notice'.

Despite your rather uninformed opinions, Asp.Net is the one that has been
making people take notice (and RoR) - it's acceleration to where it stands
to day has been phenomenal. CF has done nothing close to this to make people
'take notice' - and this is a provable fact, not just an opinion. Again, not
knocking CF, this has more to do with Asp.Net being owned by the biggest
marketing machine on the planet.

Serously, the post you made was so wildly innacurate that it looks like you
just entered the web dev game yesterday and are yet to get any real sense of
who the players are and where they all sit with resepct to each other.
People not taking notice of cf is one of the major reasons many a lot of
companies refuse to adopt it!

Keep using CF is it works for you, but I would work on losing those
fantasies you have about where it sits in the world of web development.


"Dinghus" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:erneu9$b9e$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Did I say a memo was going around? LOL can you say "strawman"?
>
> Here are the problems. Java has too steep of a learning curve. MS portal
> etc
> are just too complicated and the functionality just isn't there. Thus
> Adobe
> products, such as Connect, are being brought in instead.
>
> When people like me can go in and create the webapp they need in a third
> the
> time and with at least twice the functionality as the other languages,
> people
> take notice.
>
> Remember, Java was not intended to be a language for building websites.
> Neither was Basic or C (++ or #). That is sort of an afterthought. They
> are
> like trying to use Fortran or Cobol to build websites.
>
> CF makes it a snap to generate webapps. It still has some shortcomings
> but
> nowhere near the same as other languages. I'll leave RoR out because I
> have
> never tried it.
>

re: with at least twice the functionality as the other languages

You screwed up right there - thats the most ludicrous statement I have heard
in quite a while. CF has way less functinality than at least 3 of those
other languages you mentioned. In fact, many solutions in CF revolve around
leveraging the extra functionality found in those other languages!

re:They are
> like trying to use Fortran or Cobol to build websites.

Yeah right, php (personal HOME PAGE) had web dev as an afterthought!!
Asp.Net was designed sepecifiacally for RAD web dev a lot more recently than
CF was - this was an afterthought too you reckon!?? Seriously, you have
absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

re: CF makes it a snap to generate webapps.

As does Ror and Asp.Net with Visual Web Developer. Both these platforms are
superior to CF as they handle a lot of teh plumbing and code gen for you -
in CF you have to do a heck of a lot of coiding before you en reach the
level of RAD these tools provide.

re: It still has some shortcomings

Of course it does - it was created over a decade a go and way earlier than a
couple of these others you speak of. It's CF and PHP that are the Fortrans
of web design. (I don't truly belive this, but it's more accurate than your
ill informed analogy here was)

Can you show me these web apps that you built with 3 times more
functionality than any other platform could have provided? If no url, can
you say what functionality it had that was missing from all other platforms?
I don't think so.








"Dinghus" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:erneu9$b9e$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Did I say a memo was going around? LOL can you say "strawman"?
>
> Here are the problems. Java has too steep of a learning curve. MS portal
> etc
> are just too complicated and the functionality just isn't there. Thus
> Adobe
> products, such as Connect, are being brought in instead.
>
> When people like me can go in and create the webapp they need in a third
> the
> time and with at least twice the functionality as the other languages,
> people
> take notice.
>
> Remember, Java was not intended to be a language for building websites.
> Neither was Basic or C (++ or #). That is sort of an afterthought. They
> are
> like trying to use Fortran or Cobol to build websites.
>
> CF makes it a snap to generate webapps. It still has some shortcomings
> but
> nowhere near the same as other languages. I'll leave RoR out because I
> have
> never tried it.
>

Did I say a memo was going around? LOL can you say "strawman"?

Here are the problems. Java has too steep of a learning curve. MS portal etc are just too complicated and the functionality just isn't there. Thus Adobe products, such as Connect, are being brought in instead.

When people like me can go in and create the webapp they need in a third the time and with at least twice the functionality as the other languages, people take notice.

Remember, Java was not intended to be a language for building websites. Neither was Basic or C (++ or #). That is sort of an afterthought. They are like trying to use Fortran or Cobol to build websites.

CF makes it a snap to generate webapps. It still has some shortcomings but nowhere near the same as other languages. I'll leave RoR out because I have never tried it.

re: > What kind of company is standing behind RoR?

37Signals and Google and quite a few others!

re:Are they as large and as
> experienced as Adobe?

Probably mopre expereinced than adobe - how long have adobe been doing web
dev platforms - must be about 5 minutes right? Serously, this is all down to
the developers behind the product. The RoR team could well be more
experienced than the CF team - I guess youd need to check out their
resumes.

re:> If you do a search for ColdFusion it returns 944 matches. That is
thirteen
> times the number of matches for RoR.

Try again - there are more books on the current versions of Ruby/Rails than
there ever have been for all versions of coldfusion! (I checked your search
and as I suspected, you deliberately left in books on the scientific
research also called coldfusion. (Whereas as I did not include books about
Rubys, Emeralds and othe rprecious stones!)




"tclaremont" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:erfdsr$sfu$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> <sarcasm>
> Unfortunately, Ruby On Rails is a very poor choice. If you do a search on
> Amazon.com for "Ruby On Rails" you only get 74 matches.
>
> If you do a search for ColdFusion it returns 944 matches. That is thirteen
> times the number of matches for RoR.
>
> Obviously there is not enough demand for RoR books to warrant publishing
> the
> volumes that exist for ColdFusion. If a market leader such as Amazon.com
> does
> not see fit to carry more books on RoR it is because there obviously is
> nowhere
> near enough demand to justify it.
>
> And don't get me started on the Tiobe statistics that compare CF to RoR.
> Have
> you read the latest issue? The mailman was a day late with it and I took a
> day
> off from work just to read it cover to cover.
>
> What kind of company is standing behind RoR? Are they as large and as
> experienced as Adobe? How many customer support options are there? What
> kind of
> distibution model do they have for RoR?
>
> Using AndleyJandley logic, It really saddens me to say that all of my
> selectively chosen and manipulated criteria point overwhelmingly to CF as
> the
> logical choice here.
>
> </sarcasm>
>

re: If you do a search for ColdFusion it returns 944 matches. That is
thirteen
times the number of matches for RoR.

Sneaky bugger - you know many of those matches refer to nothing to do with
coldfusion as we know it (they refer to some scientific way of creating
energy)

re: What kind of company is standing behind RoR?

Not many. Nor does it have a decent IDE. The time is not right for RoR, but
its much better than PHP imho.

re: point overwhelmingly to CF as the
> logical choice here.

Not at all - RoR is still probably a better way to go regardless.
Productivity alone makes it better than CF. CF only had "productivity" left
as some way to try and differentiate itself from others. Thanks to RoR and
Asp.Net w/visual studio, cf now is finding it even harder to find a purpose
in life.

cf is fine for newbies and casual programmers, but if one needs to be
productive cf can be a real drag.




"tclaremont" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:erfdsr$sfu$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> <sarcasm>
> Unfortunately, Ruby On Rails is a very poor choice. If you do a search on
> Amazon.com for "Ruby On Rails" you only get 74 matches.
>
> If you do a search for ColdFusion it returns 944 matches. That is thirteen
> times the number of matches for RoR.
>
> Obviously there is not enough demand for RoR books to warrant publishing
> the
> volumes that exist for ColdFusion. If a market leader such as Amazon.com
> does
> not see fit to carry more books on RoR it is because there obviously is
> nowhere
> near enough demand to justify it.
>
> And don't get me started on the Tiobe statistics that compare CF to RoR.
> Have
> you read the latest issue? The mailman was a day late with it and I took a
> day
> off from work just to read it cover to cover.
>
> What kind of company is standing behind RoR? Are they as large and as
> experienced as Adobe? How many customer support options are there? What
> kind of
> distibution model do they have for RoR?
>
> Using AndleyJandley logic, It really saddens me to say that all of my
> selectively chosen and manipulated criteria point overwhelmingly to CF as
> the
> logical choice here.
>
> </sarcasm>
>

<sarcasm>
Unfortunately, Ruby On Rails is a very poor choice. If you do a search on Amazon.com for "Ruby On Rails" you only get 74 matches.

If you do a search for ColdFusion it returns 944 matches. That is thirteen times the number of matches for RoR.

Obviously there is not enough demand for RoR books to warrant publishing the volumes that exist for ColdFusion. If a market leader such as Amazon.com does not see fit to carry more books on RoR it is because there obviously is nowhere near enough demand to justify it.

And don't get me started on the Tiobe statistics that compare CF to RoR. Have you read the latest issue? The mailman was a day late with it and I took a day off from work just to read it cover to cover.

What kind of company is standing behind RoR? Are they as large and as experienced as Adobe? How many customer support options are there? What kind of distibution model do they have for RoR?

Using AndleyJandley logic, It really saddens me to say that all of my selectively chosen and manipulated criteria point overwhelmingly to CF as the logical choice here.

</sarcasm>

re: if the studio doesn't adopt CF I think we'll probably settle on PHP
because of the resources, hosting options and number of programmers
available.

This makes me sad as this is the reality for the majority of people. Much as
they may like cf, it generally ends up not being a viable option. Kevin
Yank, editor over at SitePoint.com, recently declared cf to be a stagnant
technology - I don't think it's cf that is stagnant as such, just the market
for it.

Still, php shouldn't be your choice imho, it should be dot net if you want
raw power and a huge developer base or Ruby/RoR if you place emphassis on
simplicity and RAD development.


"mpjx" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:eqfpqd$sla$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I need to make a decision on which scripting language or languages will be
> "officially" adopted by my design studio for producing web applications -
> both
> for internal use and for client projects. We're a small studio so we can't
> do
> the whole range of CF, PHP, ASP.NET, RUBY, JSP etc, etc in-house. I'm a
> designer, not a programmer, so not really experienced in any of these.
>
> I'm attracted to CF by the apparent shallow learning curve, interation
> with
> other Adobe products (Flash etc), apparent ease of communication with a
> wide
> range of databases, and finally the perceived value of the product to
> clients.
> Don't get me wrong, I love Open Source and many of it's projects, it's
> just
> that I wonder if corporates think OpenSource=free=cheap=low quality. In
> spite
> of this, if the studio doesn't adopt CF I think we'll probably settle on
> PHP
> because of the resources, hosting options and number of programmers
> available.
>
> Does anyone know of any honest, unbiased reports on the pros and cons of
> ColdFusion, compared to PHP or other programming languages? I've done some
> online searches but all the info that I've found appears biased because
> it's
> been written by "evangelists" in one camp or another (particularly PHP
> because
> there are so many programmers out there and ASP.NET because there are so
> many
> companies with a commercial interest in Microsoft products). Ideally the
> report
> would cover areas like application development time, total cost of
> ownership,
> availability of 3rd party hosting, scalability, reliability, security,
> hardware
> requirements, database connectivity, compatibility with other languages.
>
> Can anyone point me in the direction of such an article or report? I just
> want
> to base my decision on reliable information. Thanks in advance for your
> help!
>
> Martin
>

re: settle on PHP
because of the resources, hosting options and number of programmers
available.

Just some advice for you. PHP programmers haev already begun the migration
to Ruby - at least this is a popular opinion and one that makes a great deal
of sense. PHP is relatively simple, but is very convoluted and suffers from
many of the same issues as CF does. Ruby was designed relatively recently
with the idea of simplicty at its core. RoR (Rails) was likewise developed
with simplicity at its core. By sheer virtue of the fact that these
platforms have learned from the mistakes made in PHP and CF. they are far
simpler and much more productive.

So, if you go the PHP route, you may inadvertantlly end up on RoR in the
coming years. Already many hosting services are starting to offer this.
Still, ealry days yet, and php will be the web designers choice for some
time to come. (with java and asp.net being more a coders choice imho)

If you throw money at cf you seriously won't win. You will still find that
the other platforms can do stuff that cf either can't do, or can't do as
well (possibly vica versa btw). To my way of thinking, why pay out for
something that doesn't really have a significant edge over competetion and,
in many cases, is even lacking compared to the competition? You end up
limiting yourself so much and not really benefiting in return - honestly,
there is nothing magical about cf, no super fast edge or productivity
gains - all the major platforms make these claims.(and all can back up them
up in varying ways)

If you simply 'like' cf or feel 'comfortable' with it - then thats a
diffrent matter. I bought an expensive camera recently and the first thing
the salesman said to me was to hold the camera's in my hands. There were
about 4 models that all seemed to be the same or similar. The guy said that
the most important thing was to simply hold them in my hands and see which
felt more comfortable. I went with the Nikon, it just felt 'right' to me.
You may go with CF becuase it feels 'right' to you. But don't make the
mistae of thinking you will somehow build better sites faster. I know I
certainly can't take better photos faster than I could with the Canon.




"mpjx" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:eqfpqd$sla$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I need to make a decision on which scripting language or languages will be
> "officially" adopted by my design studio for producing web applications -
> both
> for internal use and for client projects. We're a small studio so we can't
> do
> the whole range of CF, PHP, ASP.NET, RUBY, JSP etc, etc in-house. I'm a
> designer, not a programmer, so not really experienced in any of these.
>
> I'm attracted to CF by the apparent shallow learning curve, interation
> with
> other Adobe products (Flash etc), apparent ease of communication with a
> wide
> range of databases, and finally the perceived value of the product to
> clients.
> Don't get me wrong, I love Open Source and many of it's projects, it's
> just
> that I wonder if corporates think OpenSource=free=cheap=low quality. In
> spite
> of this, if the studio doesn't adopt CF I think we'll probably settle on
> PHP
> because of the resources, hosting options and number of programmers
> available.
>
> Does anyone know of any honest, unbiased reports on the pros and cons of
> ColdFusion, compared to PHP or other programming languages? I've done some
> online searches but all the info that I've found appears biased because
> it's
> been written by "evangelists" in one camp or another (particularly PHP
> because
> there are so many programmers out there and ASP.NET because there are so
> many
> companies with a commercial interest in Microsoft products). Ideally the
> report
> would cover areas like application development time, total cost of
> ownership,
> availability of 3rd party hosting, scalability, reliability, security,
> hardware
> requirements, database connectivity, compatibility with other languages.
>
> Can anyone point me in the direction of such an article or report? I just
> want
> to base my decision on reliable information. Thanks in advance for your
> help!
>
> Martin
>

re: Why? Because
they have found all other solutions (Microsoft and Java primarily) are
horrible.

Yeah sure - the governemnt memo says Micrsoft and Java are 'horrible' and
are moving immediately to coldfusion. Sure, we believe you, honest.

re: So you just stay with whatever lame language you want and let people
like me
keep nailing the very nice paying contracts for CF.

Hey, now thats what I'm talking about. Good for you!


"Dinghus" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:er4ogj$5hs$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Ahhhh SOL, you are clueless. I happen to be in a position to know this
> for a
> fact, the US Gov't is slowly moving to CF and Adobe solutions. Why?
> Because
> they have found all other solutions (Microsoft and Java primarily) are
> horrible.
>
> In all the gov't installations I've been in over the last few years there
> is
> no PHP and no Ruby. But more and more CF with Flash front ends.
>
> So you just stay with whatever lame language you want and let people like
> me
> keep nailing the very nice paying contracts for CF.
>

re: There is an old adage that states you can have it done cheap, you can
have it
done fast, or you can have it done well. Pick two.

Not sure I get the analogy - cf is not as prodcutive as RoR, but RoR is
cheap. aspx is not cheap but is massively supported and has a much more
productive IDE than cf. So on and so forth. cf doesn't really fit in the
category of "fast but not cheap" any better than any number of others do.

re: I, personally, can program very well and very fast in ColdFusion. The
tradeoff
is the initial cost of the server software.

Cost of the software should not be the main issue, thats just money, and
hopefully money that can be earned back. Coldfusion didn't lose favor so
much becuase it costs a lot of money rather a bi-product of this, it didn't
get installed on enough servers to grab the attention of the web community -
that was its main blow.

re: I, personally, can program very well and very fast in ColdFusion.

Yes, one ought to be able to code very fast in their chosen language, makes
sense.

re: If you do not have the ability to program very well or very fast in
ColdFusion, then your point of view will not be the same.

I can code vey well and very fast in coldfusion - but how does this solve
teh real issues. If I code faster will more jobs appear? If I code well will
I see some more third party support or more ISP's with cf support? You
arguments border more on being personal than on actually making any real
sense in this discussion.

>>or switch to a tool you are more
comfortable with.

Are you serious - do you think developers just get to "switch"? As in
"Excuse me boss, been doing some thing over the weekend. I'm gonna switch
all our systems to coldfusion. You don't mind do you??"


At teh end of teh day, cf offers little to nothing of significance to a
great deal of develoeprs -therefore they stick with whats more widely
supported and arguably what is more powerful.









"tclaremont" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:er4ipi$s59$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Andy, we hear loud and clear that CF is not the tool for you. Your needs
> are
> apparently not compatible with what CF has to offer. Either that or you
> have
> not learned to use CF in ways that work for you. There is no shame in
> that.
>
> You can drive a Chevrolet, or you can drive a Ferrari, or you can drive a
> BMW.
> Any one of them will get you where you need to go. One might be the right
> choice for you, but might be wrong for someone else.
>
> There is an old adage that states you can have it done cheap, you can have
> it
> done fast, or you can have it done well. Pick two.
>
> I, personally, can program very well and very fast in ColdFusion. The
> tradeoff
> is the initial cost of the server software.
>
> If you do not have the ability to program very well or very fast in
> ColdFusion, then your point of view will not be the same. The solution is
> to
> get more experience or more training in CF, or switch to a tool you are
> more
> comfortable with.
>
>
>
>
>
>