How fast is Cold Fusion to develop in?

>> And, if you had to go in an edit the
code w/out the IDE, would you be able to easily?

Why wouldn't you be able to edit it easily? You would have to know the
language of course, but you could likley edit it a lot easier than the cfml.
Wy? Becuase the code in a asp.net app resides in event handlers - not
sprawled throughout a page o fplaced in varying locations. It's far easier
to figure out the flow and to locate the code that needs to be edited - this
is way better than cf, old asp, and php.

>>The CF approach had many less lines of code
than the .NET version. However, most of the CF code was written by hand.

This is true in a lot of cases, not just the calendar. the .NET classes are
many and varied, cf tags , whil enot as powerful or flexible, are small
chunks of pre written functionality. But understand that the code behind the
coldfusion tags is a great many lines, just at the code behind the asp.net
controls can be.

You have to do everything by hand in cf and you have no built in event
handling support to keep code clean, tidy and managable. In asp.net you have
tool support, framework support and a many other benefits aimed at making
app dev much faster. None of it is worth anything to the developer who wants
to 'knock up' the occasional web app, cf suits better here.


"cfmueller" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:eccfgv$fji$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> jtbcfdev -
>
> I once saw a live demo at a local ColdFusion user's conference. A
> "Microsoft
> Certified" guy came in to show a basic calendering application built in CF
> and
> a similar app built with .NET. The CF approach had many less lines of
> code
> than the .NET version. However, most of the CF code was written by hand.
> The
> .NET app was created with the Visual Studio IDE and was much more click
> and
> drag. The IDE made it look easier, but where the guy was clicking and
> what
> toolbar to use was a mystery to us all. And, if you had to go in an edit
> the
> code w/out the IDE, would you be able to easily? Probably not.
>
> If you are just starting out, go with CF. If you aren't take a look at
> .NET,
> but I think you'll be coming back shortly to CF.
>
> You may also want to look at Ruby on Rails. I don't neccessarily agree
> with
> the comment that it isn't mature yet. If you are looking for basic
> database
> accessing applications with Create, Update, Read, and Delete, you'll be
> amazed
> at how quick RoR is.
>
> You also asked if RoR had a good IDE. Well the install comes with
> FreeRide.
> I've been using RadRails which is a perspective in Eclipse. It's not bad.
> You
> could always use EditPlus too.
>

jtbcfdev -

I once saw a live demo at a local ColdFusion user's conference. A "Microsoft Certified" guy came in to show a basic calendering application built in CF and a similar app built with .NET. The CF approach had many less lines of code than the .NET version. However, most of the CF code was written by hand. The .NET app was created with the Visual Studio IDE and was much more click and drag. The IDE made it look easier, but where the guy was clicking and what toolbar to use was a mystery to us all. And, if you had to go in an edit the code w/out the IDE, would you be able to easily? Probably not.

If you are just starting out, go with CF. If you aren't take a look at .NET, but I think you'll be coming back shortly to CF.

You may also want to look at Ruby on Rails. I don't neccessarily agree with the comment that it isn't mature yet. If you are looking for basic database accessing applications with Create, Update, Read, and Delete, you'll be amazed at how quick RoR is.

You also asked if RoR had a good IDE. Well the install comes with FreeRide. I've been using RadRails which is a perspective in Eclipse. It's not bad. You could always use EditPlus too.

>>> Does Ruby on Rails have a good IDE?

Not sure if it does - but I do know that it does lots of code generation for
you. (plumbing)

> From my limited experience of ASP .Net it seems to take more code to
create a
> simple thing like taking data from a database and putting it on the HTML
page
> versus CF

Yes, limited experience. With VS.Net (or the free Visaul Web Developer) you
can do database access (read, write, edit, delete) without ever even looking
at any code, and in under 60 seconds. This is true for Asp.Net 2.0 as it
uses datasource objects, visual components which take care of all the
database access.

It's funny, as you can do this in Dreamweaver for CF in about the same
time - however the code that DW generates is not very good and the interface
it uses is lacking by comparison.

>> Does the huge investment in learning etc for ASP pay off when it actually
comes to producing a finished solution?

Yes, a long as you are building more than just the one website, as is often
the case with web developers :) It may not suit designer types with only the
need for an occasional dynamic form - php or cf suits far better in these
cases I think.

>> Or do projects get bogged down in high
level OO design rather than producing working pages?

You can get bogged down in OO design in cf, php or .net. Again, being
'bogged down' may be neccasarry or may be overkill - it depends on the
nature of the project. It's more a cultural thing within the cf and php
world where by developers chuck all their code in the page and build the app
as they go. Trust me, plenty of asp.net deevlopers do this too.

Generally speaking, you will write less code in asp.net and the code you do
write will be fully supported by event handlers, the framweork, and the IDE.
With cf and php, there is not much tool support and not so much 'visual'
support or plumbing work done for you.

I think asp.net is about as RAD as it gets right now, at least in the
traditional sense of what RAD means.







"jtbcfdev" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:ecap3k$d0b$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Does Ruby on Rails have a good IDE?
>
> From my limited experience of ASP .Net it seems to take more code to
create a
> simple thing like taking data from a database and putting it on the HTML
page
> versus CF, which does this very quickly and simply. Or am I missing
something?
>
> Does the huge investment in learning etc for ASP pay off when it actually
> comes to producing a finished solution? Or do projects get bogged down in
high
> level OO design rather than producing working pages?
>

Does Ruby on Rails have a good IDE?

From my limited experience of ASP .Net it seems to take more code to create a simple thing like taking data from a database and putting it on the HTML page versus CF, which does this very quickly and simply. Or am I missing something?

Does the huge investment in learning etc for ASP pay off when it actually comes to producing a finished solution? Or do projects get bogged down in high level OO design rather than producing working pages?

1. Asp.Net
2. RoR
3. php
4. cfml
5. JSP
6.Perl

I put php slightly above cfml as there is so much more code and apps
available in php that you rarely need to start anything from scratch, but
not really sure if that should be an influence as cfml is can certainly be
faster to code in than php in the simpler to moderate cases (eg; database
create, read, update and display based apps).

I didn't put Python in the list as I don't think it is really geared for web
apps at this point.

Though I would put cfml at number 2 or possibly even number 1 for simplest
to learn, but at number 5 or 6 for its viability for more serious projects.

By the way, I am no great authority on these things - just the way it seems
to be in my experience.


"jtbcfdev" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:ec327j$iuu$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Does anyone know of any studies or "code-off"s comparing how fast it is to
> create a solution in CF versus other current web technologies (PHP, ASP
> .Net
> etc) ??
>
> I'm not talking about server /code performance, simply how quickly a
> developer
> can churn out a workable web solution.
>
> I find it very fast myself, but wondering if there are any studies you
> know
> of, or failing that your opinions.
>
>
>

I am inclined to agree with the previus guy, but should add that coldfusion
can, and sometimes is, used by more professional developers and not just
casual developers.

ASP.NET is almost certainly the most RAD tool out there. The VS.NET IDE and
the server control model that ASP.NET uses were built from the ground up to
deliver minimal coding and lots of 'visual' development. Coldfusion takes a
more script like approach to devlopment and you need to use some other tool
or framework to match what the asp.net frameowrk provides.

However, if you do not know c# or vb.net, then you won't be doing much RAD
stuff at all with asp.net - you will just be spending a lot of time
scratching your head. I do know C# and I think it was not that much harder
to learn than cfml yet infinitely more powerful for lots more than just web
apps, the trade off was more than fair I felt.

I would palce coldfusion second in that list, not third, RoR is not mature
enough yet and has not yet really been proven.







"jtbcfdev" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:ec327j$iuu$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Does anyone know of any studies or "code-off"s comparing how fast it is to
> create a solution in CF versus other current web technologies (PHP, ASP
.Net
> etc) ??
>
> I'm not talking about server /code performance, simply how quickly a
developer
> can churn out a workable web solution.
>
> I find it very fast myself, but wondering if there are any studies you
know
> of, or failing that your opinions.
>
>
>

Here's my opininions on this:

You cannot possibly do such a comparison in a meaningful way, there are too
many variables. For example, my opinion is that you can build a web
application much faster in VS.Net / Asp.Net, but learning c# or vb.net will
take longer than learning CFML. So asp.net is faster in one respect, but
slower in another. But realsitically, the learning curve happens once and
pay off happens every time.

If you are building basic apps and are not doing so very often, cf is a
better choice than asp.net. But if you are building lots of apps on a
regular basis, it may be worth using asp.net. Also, asp.net has an awsome
free IDE called visual web developer, this tool offers far more RAD support
than any IDE available for CFML, so again one could argue asp.net is faster
to develop in.

Tools are not the only thing that can supply RAD -iness. You also need a
large library of pre written applications, modules and third party support -
again, you are far more likley to to get what you need in the asp.net world
than you are in the cf world. The number of people invested in asp.net is
far higher than with cf, so this makes perfect sense.

Having said all that - if you have one web app you need to build and you
need to buil it by the end of this month, then coldfusion is more likley to
be the solution for the absolute beginner. Possibnly php, but it is my
opinion php is a less RAD tool than cf at this point in time.

The most RAD tool out there, so far as I can tell, is Ruby On Rails. This is
a new platform that was built to solve old problems and speed up application
development. Tools like cf and php made a good start in this space, but Ruby
On Rails has learned from them and advanced RAD to a new level.

Forgetting learning curves for a moment, I would summarise as follows:

1. Asp.Net
2. Ruby On Rails
3. ColdFusion
4. PHP, Python etc;
5. Perl


This puts coldfusion in the middle. Hwover, things like expense could put cf
further down the list while things like "ease of learning" could push it up
a notch. It is my observation that professional deevlopers invest in a
longer term stategy adn do not really find cf very appealing, but beginner
or casual deevlopers may find cf an attractive option.

If you hear folk telling you cf is "bad" - do not listen. I think it is more
a case of it being harder for it managers to justify. While I place cf in
the middle of 'most rad' it also happens to be relatively expensive (in
terms of actual dollars and in terms risks asscocoated with using a product
that is no longer mainstream) - a lot of managers use this a a way of
putting it at the bottom of their lists, or even not having it on the list
in the first place.







"jtbcfdev" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:ec327j$iuu$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Does anyone know of any studies or "code-off"s comparing how fast it is to
> create a solution in CF versus other current web technologies (PHP, ASP
.Net
> etc) ??
>
> I'm not talking about server /code performance, simply how quickly a
developer
> can churn out a workable web solution.
>
> I find it very fast myself, but wondering if there are any studies you
know
> of, or failing that your opinions.
>
>
>