Future of Coldfusion

Report · May 22, 2006

Someone at my company mentioned adobe tech support for coldfusion is going away?

I couldn't get any further details from them. Are there new versions/developments of coldfusion underway and will coldfusion be supported going forward?

Thanks

Report · May 22, 2006

Well...

Adobe just retooled Adobe.com to run on CF.
Adobe engineers are hard at work on the next release of CF.
Some of the most buzzed new sites, like Myspace, are running CF.
There is a huge install base and companies like BlueDragon waiting to pick up any slack.

Report · May 22, 2006

Yes, there are new versions/developments of coldfusion and jrun underway.

Yes, it will be supported going forward.

Report · May 22, 2006

I think it was a nearjerk reaction based on what they saw here: http://www.adobe.com/support/programs/self/coldfusion.html

I guess our company has a lot of CF 5 applications...

Report · May 22, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by: _KC_

I think it was a nearjerk reaction based on what they saw here: http://www.adobe.com/support/programs/self/coldfusion.html

I guess our company has a lot of CF 5 applications...

Oh. You should've specified CF5. So yes, that's obviously going to retire.

But, even Microsoft and Cisco discontinue support for their way-old products and they have much more riding on them.

Anyway, after all this time, how much CF5 support do you need?

Report · May 22, 2006

Well in my division my first initiative after starting in january 06 was to setup a new mx 7 server and start migrating our old apps to the new server. This was mainly becuase i learned MX 6.1 in school and maintining poorly written apps in CF 5.0 is more work than its worth.

I guess our other divisions don't have the same plan...

Report · May 22, 2006

You might want to see Damon Cooper's comments to a recent blog disucssion along these lines:

ColdFusion Needs A Roadmap
http://www.cbetta.com/blog/index.cfm/2006/5/19/coldfusion-needs-a-roadmap

Report · May 23, 2006

Is this question ever going to go away, they are already developing the next version. If it were dying, they would not spend the money to further develop the application. Its going to be around for awhile. Geesh people just research and answer your own question, its not that hard to figure it out, I called them and Adobe is actively producing the next version of CF. Its going to be around awhile people.

Report · May 28, 2006

> Is this question ever going to go away,

Not as long as CF remains the least popular and least installed scripting
technology. Too many people can see that many other alternatives have
considerable advantages, or are comparable to, cf - hence, people worry.

>Its going to be around for awhile.

define 'a while'.

>Geesh people just research and answer your own question

Posting for opinion and input IS part of research.

>its not that hard to figure it out

it is, nobody knows the future. you can show clues that point one way and
very easily show clues that point the opposite way.

IMHO, cf will plod along quite nicely in certain places, slump in others,
and stay dead in the places it is already dead in.

"rmorgan" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:e4udmr$843$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Is this question ever going to go away, they are already developing the
next
> version. If it were dying, they would not spend the money to further
develop
> the application. Its going to be around for awhile. Geesh people just
research
> and answer your own question, its not that hard to figure it out, I called
them
> and Adobe is actively producing the next version of CF. Its going to be
around
> awhile people.
>

Report · May 30, 2006

Yes, i totally agree! CF might just disappear if it goes like this for a year or two. I think CF itself is the best development language with its ease, functionality and speed. But it is expensive, and losing its competative edge to other inexpensive, free tools.
It should go open source, or go cheaper and affordabel for smaller companies. Then it will pick up I guess!
I wanna stick to learning CF, but I might just be forced to learn PHP or .net beacuse of the circumstances mentioned above.

CF101

Report · May 31, 2006

cf101, You shouldn't agree "totally", and then state your own views, which actually differ quite a lot from those mentioned above in this thread....

No one said CF was about to die. Having such few competitors in its _own_ area (tight J2EE integration), it would be crazy to make such a competitive and time-saving product totally free. That would be just bad business.

However, you got it right - the pricing for small companies is too high. And because CF little known, it always arouses suspicions amongst the decision makers. The Professional version is priced quite right in my opinion, but it should not be feature-crippled as it is now. Limiting the Professional version only by scalability and maintenancebility-limited (as it is now) would be definately more attractive. MM probably thought that event gateways are a scalability thing, but they are not just that. It drives me nuts that I'd be limited by so much by not having them in the Professional version.

As some people have said, being a good CF programmer is a mixed situation - when there's demand for workforce, the job is practically yours - but when you're looking for a job, it's the same if you'd apply for a Penthouse playmates' official wardrobe/lingerie assistant. Dream on! :-)

Here are the fresh search results for job announcements from the website of the Finnish Ministry of Employment, by a single keyword, filtering in ONLY programmers/designers, covering the whole country:

Java: 31
J2EE: 20
PHP: 11
ColdFusion: 0
HTML: 17
Web: 23

The only good news here is, that Java and J2EE are quite strongly represented - many of those Could be potential ColdFusion customers, if they only got the clue...

Report · May 31, 2006

>Having such few competitors in its _own_ area
(tight J2EE integration),

this 'area' is not the same 'area' under discussion. Noboody is saying that
some other platform has tighter, or not so tight , j2ee integration. Who,
using .net or php or any of the more widely used platforms , wants tight
j2ee integration? The only people I could think of would be, oddly enough,
coldfusion developers that need to use cfml and java becuase cfml alone
isn't enough. The vast majority of people who use cfml are not arsed about
'tight j2ee integration' - they are interested in keeping the hell away from
j2ee!! Any 'hooks into java' are a great bonus of course.

>it would be crazy to make such a competitive and
time-saving product totally free.

yeah, crazy for those out to make money, but not crazy for those who would
like coldfusion to be more widely adopted. But thats the nature of the
product, to make its owner money. Which is why coldfusion not being used
very widely is no reflection on coldfusion, but the model under which it is
sold.

>> - many of those Could be potential ColdFusion customers, if they only got
>> the
> clue...

I hear you here, but do you think Adobe, much smaller than Sun and MS, and
their product (cf) being only a secondary product in their product line up,
and them having no experience or solid footing in this market, could ever
hope to market cf and give them a clue? Possibly, but probably not.

"Fernis" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:e5jfsi$p5j$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> cf101, You shouldn't agree "totally", and then state your own views, which
> actually differ quite a lot from those mentioned above in this thread....
>
> No one said CF was about to die. Having such few competitors in its _own_
> area
> (tight J2EE integration), it would be crazy to make such a competitive and
> time-saving product totally free. That would be just bad business.
>
> However, you got it right - the pricing for small companies is too high.
> And
> because CF little known, it always arouses suspicions amongst the decision
> makers. The Professional version is priced quite right in my opinion, but
> it
> should not be feature-crippled as it is now. Limiting the Professional
> version
> only by scalability and maintenancebility-limited (as it is now) would be
> definately more attractive. MM probably thought that event gateways are a
> scalability thing, but they are not just that. It drives me nuts that I'd
> be
> limited by so much by not having them in the Professional version.
>
> As some people have said, being a good CF programmer is a mixed
> situation -
> when there's demand for workforce, the job is practically yours - but when
> you're looking for a job, it's the same if you'd apply for a Penthouse
> playmates' official wardrobe/lingerie assistant. Dream on! :-)
>
> Here are the fresh search results for job announcements from the website
> of
> the Finnish Ministry of Employment, by a single keyword, filtering in ONLY
> programmers/designers, covering the whole country:
>
> Java: 31
> J2EE: 20
> PHP: 11
> ColdFusion: 0
> HTML: 17
> Web: 23
>
> The only good news here is, that Java and J2EE are quite strongly
> represented
> - many of those Could be potential ColdFusion customers, if they only got
> the
> clue...
>

Report · May 31, 2006

>The vast majority of people who use cfml are not arsed about
>'tight j2ee integration' - they are interested in keeping the hell away from
>j2ee!! Any 'hooks into java' are a great bonus of course.

That's complete nonsense.

The fact is, J2EE has gained much of its popularity by hype, and CF would be the perfect companion/addition to many frameworks which are J2EE based - the possibilities to build anything new quickly and efficiently, integrating it tightly with the existing framework, is one of CF's greatest advantages.

>Who, using .net or php or any of the more widely used platforms , wants tight j2ee integration?

You said it. That's maybe why they're using their PROPRIETARY technologies. They've chosen their path.

>I hear you here, but do you think Adobe, much smaller than Sun and MS, and
>their product (cf) being only a secondary product in their product line up,
>and them having no experience or solid footing in this market, could ever
>hope to market cf and give them a clue? Possibly, but probably not.

You're right, I guess. I've been wondering just, if Adobe/MM is waiting for Flash content to become widely accepted enough - then it'd be nice to use Flex as the milking cow, while the role of ColdFusion would shrink, allowing Adobe/MM to make it (a) free (bait). But this is just pure theory, and not about to happen in a long time, if ever. :-)

>coldfusion has just a fraction of this market - anything done now will be
>too little too late I expect.

Why such an attitude. Well, everyone's got right to one. I think CF and BlueDragon sales figures (I know, what figures - nobody's willing to give exact numbers because they are so very low compared to installations of other platforms) are solid proof that things are moving forward for ColdFusion.

>Think of this way, coldfusion is just for web. java and .net handle ALL your
>needs.

You know the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none."? I think I need to say no more. And who's now mixing "areas under discussion" ? You didn't even realize you just praised CF for web over the other platforms, now did you? Praise accepted, and well-deserved.

>Whilst coldfusion has some things going for it, things that suit beginners,
>it has much much more against it.

That totally depends on the environment you want to use, and the features you want to have. CF has its place on the globe, and there are no substitutes for it, what comes to many different needs. Many people have different goals, and I'm sure Ruby on Rails is a Great, Great thing, and I'm going to try it myself in the near future too. I just fail to see from the tutorials, what's so great in RoR... it's trying to make an incredibly complicated thing easy.... basically the same what ColdFusion is doing for Java/J2EE/JSP. I know, if you're a(n OO) programmer by heart, CF has probably too many limitations for you, but that shouldn't be the only argument when comparing ways to create dynamic web applications.

Report · May 31, 2006

>CF would be
the perfect companion/addition to many frameworks which are J2EE based

But its not - hardly anybody goes for j2ee thinking, lets scrap the jsp side
of j2ee, and all the other great j2ee frameworks, and replace it with
coldfusion. Why woudl they - why write in java for one portion and tehn
suddenly switch to cfml for the other? Especially as the team are likely
java developers anyway!

>That's maybe why they're using their PROPRIETARY technologies.
They've chosen their path.

Coldfusion is 'PROPRIETARY' and the least open of all these web
technologies. Especially with respect to how much third party support and
tools it has.

>>You know the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none."? I

You are a bit confused here. JSP is not 'jack of all trades' - J2EE is not
either. These technologies have dedicated portions. Same with .net, they
have a dedicated asp.net portion. Generally, you dont choose j2ee or .net
and then abandon their dedicated web portion for coldfusion - way too many
disadvantages in doing so.

"Fernis" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:e5kf5r$7ld$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> >The vast majority of people who use cfml are not arsed about
> >'tight j2ee integration' - they are interested in keeping the hell away
from
> >j2ee!! Any 'hooks into java' are a great bonus of course.
>
> That's complete nonsense.
>
> The fact is, J2EE has gained much of its popularity by hype, and CF would
be
> the perfect companion/addition to many frameworks which are J2EE based -
the
> possibilities to build anything new quickly and efficiently, integrating
it
> tightly with the existing framework, is one of CF's greatest advantages.
>
> >Who, using .net or php or any of the more widely used platforms , wants
tight
> j2ee integration?
>
> You said it. That's maybe why they're using their PROPRIETARY
technologies.
> They've chosen their path.
>
> >I hear you here, but do you think Adobe, much smaller than Sun and MS,
and
> >their product (cf) being only a secondary product in their product line
up,
> >and them having no experience or solid footing in this market, could
ever
> >hope to market cf and give them a clue? Possibly, but probably not.
>
> You're right, I guess. I've been wondering just, if Adobe/MM is waiting
for
> Flash content to become widely accepted enough - then it'd be nice to use
Flex
> as the milking cow, while the role of ColdFusion would shrink, allowing
> Adobe/MM to make it (a) free (bait). But this is just pure theory, and not
> about to happen in a long time, if ever. :-)
>
> >coldfusion has just a fraction of this market - anything done now will
be
> >too little too late I expect.
>
> Why such an attitude. Well, everyone's got right to one. I think CF and
> BlueDragon sales figures (I know, what figures - nobody's willing to give
exact
> numbers because they are so very low compared to installations of other
> platforms) are solid proof that things are moving forward for ColdFusion.
>
> >Think of this way, coldfusion is just for web. java and .net handle ALL
your
> >needs.
>
> You know the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none."? I think I need
to
> say no more. And who's now mixing "areas under discussion" ? You didn't
even
> realize you just praised CF for web over the other platforms, now did you?
> Praise accepted, and well-deserved.
>
> >Whilst coldfusion has some things going for it, things that suit
beginners,
> >it has much much more against it.
>
> That totally depends on the environment you want to use, and the features
you
> want to have. CF has its place on the globe, and there are no substitutes
for
> it, what comes to many different needs. Many people have different goals,
and
> I'm sure Ruby on Rails is a Great, Great thing, and I'm going to try it
myself
> in the near future too. I just fail to see from the tutorials, what's so
great
> in RoR... it's trying to make an incredibly complicated thing easy....
> basically the same what ColdFusion is doing for Java/J2EE/JSP. I know, if
> you're a(n OO) programmer by heart, CF has probably too many limitations
for
> you, but that shouldn't be the only argument when comparing ways to create
> dynamic web applications.
>

Report · May 31, 2006

Sloane,
>>CF would be the perfect companion/addition to many frameworks which are J2EE based
>But its not - hardly anybody goes for j2ee thinking, lets scrap the jsp side
>of j2ee, and all the other great j2ee frameworks, and replace it with
>coldfusion. Why woudl they - why write in java for one portion and tehn
>suddenly switch to cfml for the other? Especially as the team are likely
>java developers anyway!

You're absolutely right. I forgot to say, it always takes a CF developer inside a project to show off how much more efficiently many things can be accomplished, to sell the idea. The current situation and what I've seen proves that CF is not being considered by the Java/J2EE people as an alternative. That's why the CF user base would have to go up significantly, increasing the chances for this to happen.

>>That's maybe why they're using their PROPRIETARY technologies.
>Coldfusion is 'PROPRIETARY' and the least open of all these web

I didn't claim otherwise. I was just pointing out that few of the technologies are universally compatible with everything.

>technologies. Especially with respect to how much third party support and tools it has.

I'd value the amount of Java libraries quite high. Sure, CF is one of the rarest technologies, which of course leads to many things. That still doesn't make it a bad choice by my standards. Adobe/MM has probably realised this is still NOT only a popularity contest. Most people still have NOT realised that CFMX7 is something totally different from CF5.

>>>You know the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none."? I
>You are a bit confused here. JSP is not 'jack of all trades' - J2EE is not either.

Well, AceOfBase-troll claimed that, not I. My point was only that CF is purpose-built just as he said, and it really shows. CFMX 7 Enterprise has event gateways, but since it's outrageously priced, and the Professional Edition doesn't have those, we can't still say ColdFusion wouldn't be Web-Only. Sad but true.

>have a dedicated asp.net portion. Generally, you dont choose j2ee or .net
>and then abandon their dedicated web portion for coldfusion - way too many
>disadvantages in doing so.

I disagree, and I've got real-life experience on this. J2EE apps can for example have an API, which can then be invoked by ColdFusion that provides the user interface. Yeah, the J2EE app has its user interface of its own, but ... oh my god. And if you think all J2EE programmers are excellent designers... oh my god again.

I see also many reasons to integrate complex J2EE apps and ColdFusion from the very start.

Report · Jun 01, 2006

>Sure, CF is one of the
> rarest technologies, which of course leads to many things.

Sadly, adoption being the critical one these many things.

>The current situation and what I've seen proves
> that CF is not being considered by the Java/J2EE people as an alternative.

Sadly, many of this crowd consider coldfsuion to be a toy and something for
those who are afraid of programming! Its definitely got that "newbie"
reputation about it - this is of course by design.

>Most people still have NOT realised that
CFMX7 is something totally different from CF5.

Well, thats because its not totally different. It has a few more features
and is now built in java, but it essentially still cfml. I think 'totally'
was going a bit far, but do see what you mean as in "new potential" for
java chaps.

>Yeah, the J2EE app has its user interface of its own, but ...
oh my god.

Okay, I hear you, but do you think the j2ee folk look at jsp and think "oh
my god" - no, they look at cfml adn go "oh my god". Makes sense, j2ee folk
would feel right at home with jsp. It woudl take a hell of a lot to make
them switch to cfml for the UI.

>> I see also many reasons to integrate complex J2EE apps and ColdFusion
from the
very start.

Yes, if you had access to a large talent pool of cfml coders you could
depend on. Sadly, one reason cf is not so popular is that managers know that
there just isn't the availability of cf developers. I have seen companies
refuse to evaluate cf for many reasons - the biggest would have to be that
they know (or think) that there just isn't a large amount of developers
around to draw upon. One story I heard was of a company that had a go at
hiring cf developers and abandoned all hope after realising that the vast
majority of interviwees were really web designers with very little clue
about building serious web applications - again, a reflection of the market
to which cf appeals.

cf is nice and easy, so suit small to medium sized jobs. However, it is
priced for selling to large companies. This leaves it in a position where it
will never win popularity contests - luckily, that doesn't really matter
does it.

"Fernis" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:e5m0op$59d$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Sloane,
> >>CF would be the perfect companion/addition to many frameworks which are
J2EE
> based
> >But its not - hardly anybody goes for j2ee thinking, lets scrap the jsp
side
> >of j2ee, and all the other great j2ee frameworks, and replace it with
> >coldfusion. Why woudl they - why write in java for one portion and tehn
> >suddenly switch to cfml for the other? Especially as the team are likely
> >java developers anyway!
>
> You're absolutely right. I forgot to say, it always takes a CF developer
> inside a project to show off how much more efficiently many things can be
> accomplished, to sell the idea. The current situation and what I've seen
proves
> that CF is not being considered by the Java/J2EE people as an alternative.
> That's why the CF user base would have to go up significantly, increasing
the
> chances for this to happen.
>
> >>That's maybe why they're using their PROPRIETARY technologies.
> >Coldfusion is 'PROPRIETARY' and the least open of all these web
>
> I didn't claim otherwise. I was just pointing out that few of the
technologies
> are universally compatible with everything.
>
> >technologies. Especially with respect to how much third party support
and
> tools it has.
>
> I'd value the amount of Java libraries quite high. Sure, CF is one of the
> rarest technologies, which of course leads to many things. That still
doesn't
> make it a bad choice by my standards. Adobe/MM has probably realised this
is
> still NOT only a popularity contest. Most people still have NOT realised
that
> CFMX7 is something totally different from CF5.
>
> >>>You know the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none."? I
> >You are a bit confused here. JSP is not 'jack of all trades' - J2EE is
not
> either.
>
> Well, AceOfBase-troll claimed that, not I. My point was only that CF is
> purpose-built just as he said, and it really shows. CFMX 7 Enterprise has
event
> gateways, but since it's outrageously priced, and the Professional Edition
> doesn't have those, we can't still say ColdFusion wouldn't be Web-Only.
Sad
> but true.
>
> >have a dedicated asp.net portion. Generally, you dont choose j2ee or
.net
> >and then abandon their dedicated web portion for coldfusion - way too
many
> >disadvantages in doing so.
>
> I disagree, and I've got real-life experience on this. J2EE apps can for
> example have an API, which can then be invoked by ColdFusion that provides
the
> user interface. Yeah, the J2EE app has its user interface of its own, but
...
> oh my god. And if you think all J2EE programmers are excellent
designers... oh
> my god again.

>
> I see also many reasons to integrate complex J2EE apps and ColdFusion
from the
> very start.
>

Report · Jun 01, 2006

>Well, thats because its not totally different. It has a few more features
>and is now built in java, but it essentially still cfml. I think 'totally'
>was going a bit far, but do see what you mean as in "new potential" for
>java chaps.

I can agree with that - it's not "totally" different. But hinting it's still the "same" cfml is also wrong. The basic syntax of the cfml has remained unchanged, but the flexibility of cfml (cfc model, constructors, persistence, etc.) have changed the essence of CF a lot.

>Okay, I hear you, but do you think the j2ee folk look at jsp and think "oh
>my god" - no, they look at cfml adn go "oh my god". Makes sense, j2ee folk
>would feel right at home with jsp. It woudl take a hell of a lot to make
>them switch to cfml for the UI.

..and that's exactly why Adobe should tweak their marketing strategy for CF.
Even though CF looks horrible to J2EE folks, people aren't generally afraid of something completely new, if they are made aware of the benefits.

>cf is nice and easy, so suit small to medium sized jobs. However, it is
>priced for selling to large companies. This leaves it in a position where it
>will never win popularity contests

I could not agree more. The high price tags and (add in the upgrade costs, and we're at $10000 minimum per installation) probably fund the project well enough, but in the long run, that just might be shooting oneself in his/her own leg. (Disclaimer: I'm not predicting what'll happen to CF eventually. Only Adobe/MM folks probably know, so for us mortals, it would be stupid to claim anything between death or world domination). I just hope they realize you can't sell _expensive_ _toys_ (or market products as such) for simple web page creation in 2006 anymore.

I know we've talking much about CF's strengths and weaknesses, and I'm still glad the worst weakness is not related to ColdFusion as a platform it self. However, the popularity dictates where CF is usable, and I would very strongly recommend CF for starting companies, where there already are _committed_ coders/partners. But as you've said, larger companies in Finland are also seemingly unwilling to adobe CF due to lack of competent workforce available.

Report · Jun 01, 2006

> I can agree with that - it's not "totally" different. But hinting it's
still
the "same" cfml is also wrong.

Sure, I see what you mean. but "cfc model, constructors, persistence" and
many other things that cfml now has are really just things that the other
major platforms have had all along. But, as usual, cfml does makes these
things simpler to implement in the simpler cases. (usually by the simple
omission of constructs found in the others)

>people aren't generally afraid of
something completely new, if they are made aware of the benefits.

I think people are aware of benefits, but they are also aware of the need to
compare these benefits with the drawbacks. cf is simpler to code in, but
there are far less cf developers. cf is simpler to code in, but there is far
less prewritten code. Sadly, cf is not a smart choice in the majority of
cases. Having sadi that, cf is aimed at a particular market in which
hopefully it could be the right choice. I just personally feel that the
market (beginners adn those wishing to avoid learning more techy languages)
are not the marke that would pay the relatively highy price to get going
with cf - bit of a mismatch in a lot of cases.

>>I just hope they realize you can't
sell _expensive_ _toys_ (or market products as such) for simple web page
creation in 2006 anymore.

No, not really - theres just to many products that are as good or better
available for free, cheaper or not much more. The thing is that MM/Adobe
have an established user base and can likley survive of that and those who
do purcahse cf in the future. But I am almost certain that if cf were
introcduced today as a brand new product, it would fail.

> I know we've talking much about CF's strengths and weaknesses, and I'm
still
glad the worst weakness is not related to ColdFusion as a platform it self.

Thats right, if cf were owned y MS, it would be considered the greatest
thing ever by at least half the web dev community. But its not, and half the
web dev community don't even know it still exists!! Kind of sucks really
doesn't it?

"Fernis" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:e5m8i6$fpq$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> >Well, thats because its not totally different. It has a few more features
> >and is now built in java, but it essentially still cfml. I think
'totally'
> >was going a bit far, but do see what you mean as in "new potential" for
> >java chaps.
>
> I can agree with that - it's not "totally" different. But hinting it's
still
> the "same" cfml is also wrong. The basic syntax of the cfml has remained
> unchanged, but the flexibility of cfml (cfc model, constructors,
persistence,
> etc.) have changed the essence of CF a lot.
>
> >Okay, I hear you, but do you think the j2ee folk look at jsp and think
"oh
> >my god" - no, they look at cfml adn go "oh my god". Makes sense, j2ee
folk
> >would feel right at home with jsp. It woudl take a hell of a lot to make
> >them switch to cfml for the UI.
>
> ..and that's exactly why Adobe should tweak their marketing strategy for
CF.
> Even though CF looks horrible to J2EE folks, people aren't generally
afraid of
> something completely new, if they are made aware of the benefits.
>
> >cf is nice and easy, so suit small to medium sized jobs. However, it is
> >priced for selling to large companies. This leaves it in a position
where it
> >will never win popularity contests
>
> I could not agree more. The high price tags and (add in the upgrade
costs, and
> we're at $10000 minimum per installation) probably fund the project well
> enough, but in the long run, that just might be shooting oneself in
his/her own
> leg. (Disclaimer: I'm not predicting what'll happen to CF eventually. Only
> Adobe/MM folks probably know, so for us mortals, it would be stupid to
claim
> anything between death or world domination). I just hope they realize you
can't
> sell _expensive_ _toys_ (or market products as such) for simple web page
> creation in 2006 anymore.
>
> I know we've talking much about CF's strengths and weaknesses, and I'm
still
> glad the worst weakness is not related to ColdFusion as a platform it
self.
> However, the popularity dictates where CF is usable, and I would very
strongly
> recommend CF for starting companies, where there already are _committed_
> coders/partners. But as you've said, larger companies in Finland are also
> seemingly unwilling to adobe CF due to lack of competent workforce
available.
>
>

Report · May 29, 2006

I've been a full-time ColdFusion developer for 10 years (since late 1996). It took me 9 years before I got to know PHP, and I even programmed a couple of live sites to companies. It was actually a shock, how badly PHP suits simple and quick web application building, compared to ColdFusion. CF is just so well scoped and thought over. As long as CF remains easier, quicker and code-wise more elegant than PHP (yes, I said it. PHP syntax is just horrible), I can't see why ColdFusion would/should die.

My previous company kicked me out after a merging with another, when they decided to cut out the ColdFusion production in favor of J2EE. And they do purely web sites. ...excuse me?! :-) Yes, I know you're laughing. J2EE is the most idiotic, slow and expensive way of programming web applications in any scale less than huge-massive. And they can't understand they could use CF as the "facade" language, since it's built on J2EE. Their loss. Adobe's loss too. It's dying in areas where it's not well known enough.

And, it's true that in for example in Finland (5+ Million people) you can't see _any_ ColdFusion jobs open. In five years, I've seen a handful. There was one about "n" months ago. I e-mailed them, saying I could do some consulting if they couldn't find anyone. After two months, they e-mailed me back... you guess the rest... 😉

Despite of this, I have spotted news about how BlueDragon sales have been rocketing up, and MM/Adobe is selling CF7 very well also. I still believe the most popular times of ColdFusion are still ahead.

Report · May 29, 2006

> yes, I said it. PHP syntax is just horrible

I agree totally, but that's really only about what feels natural on a
personal level. I am sure plenty of programmers think cf syntax is a little
ugly, particularly all the > and < business.

> I can't see why ColdFusion would/should die.

Me either, but it will never be as popular as it used to be before the more
open and more standardised technologies became widely available.

> My previous company kicked me out after a merging with another, when they
decided to cut out the ColdFusion production in favor of J2EE.

Sad, but familiar. CF just isn't marketed as well as j2ee and their isn't
close to being as many cf developers as there are developers in the other
platforms.

>Yes, I know you're laughing. J2EE is the
most idiotic, slow and expensive way of programming web applications in any
scale less than huge-massive.

Which really just makes the point that decision makers are sold on hype. CF
would do an admirable job in many cases where decision makers went with
cumbersome j2ee installs.

>And, it's true that in for example in Finland (5+ Million people) you can't
see _any_ ColdFusion jobs open. In five years, I've seen a handful.

Same here in Australia. One would never opt to learn coldfusion unless there
was strong reason to belive it would earn you a living, which over here it
probably would not. This of course stymies uptake. As I said in my last
post; cf is in some respects already dead, and in others very much alive -
it seems to be patchy around the globe. Unfortunately, this generally cannot
be said for php, .net and j2ee which are very much in widespread use. Thats
not to mention the next big cf killer on the horizon, Ruby On Rails.

>I still believe the most
popular times of ColdFusion are still ahead.

I struggle to see this. Sensibly speaking, this should be the case. But
that's coming from a developer viewpoint. Sadly, too many decision makers
just don't have a clue!

"Fernis" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:e5fkt7$31u$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> I've been a full-time ColdFusion developer for 10 years (since late 1996).
It
> took me 9 years before I got to know PHP, and I even programmed a couple
of
> live sites to companies. It was actually a shock, how badly PHP suits
simple
> and quick web application building, compared to ColdFusion. CF is just so
well
> scoped and thought over. As long as CF remains easier, quicker and
code-wise
> more elegant than PHP (yes, I said it. PHP syntax is just horrible), I
can't
> see why ColdFusion would/should die.
>
> My previous company kicked me out after a merging with another, when they
> decided to cut out the ColdFusion production in favor of J2EE. And they do
> purely web sites. ...excuse me?! 🙂 Yes, I know you're laughing. J2EE is
the
> most idiotic, slow and expensive way of programming web applications in
any
> scale less than huge-massive. And they can't understand they could use CF
as
> the "facade" language, since it's built on J2EE. Their loss. Adobe's loss
too.
> It's dying in areas where it's not well known enough.
>
> And, it's true that in for example in Finland (5+ Million people) you
can't
> see _any_ ColdFusion jobs open. In five years, I've seen a handful. There
was
> one about "n" months ago. I e-mailed them, saying I could do some
consulting if
> they couldn't find anyone. After two months, they e-mailed me back... you
> guess the rest... ;-)
>
> Despite of this, I have spotted news about how BlueDragon sales have been
> rocketing up, and MM is selling CF7 very well also. I still believe the
most
> popular times of ColdFusion are still ahead.
>

Report · May 29, 2006

quote:

Same here in Australia.

Hhm, someone in Australia who posts negatively about CF. Wonder who that could possibly be??

John P

Report · May 29, 2006

>Hhm, someone in Australia who posts negatively about CF. Wonder who that
could possibly be??

Are you saying it is common for Ozzies to speak negatively about cf? If so,
I think this is a huge generlisation. There are plenty of Ozzies who are
either indifferent or feel, like me, that cf is a great web tool.

"JPfeff" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:e5gjr2$5u1$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> <blockquote>quote:<br><hr>Same here in Australia. <hr></blockquote>
>
> Hhm, someone in Australia who posts negatively about CF. Wonder who that
could possibly be??
>
> John P
>
>
>

Report · May 30, 2006

>I am sure plenty of programmers think cf syntax is a little ugly,
>particularly all the > and < business.

Certainly true. Many .CFCs usually consist mostly of CFtags, which looks cumbersome to non-cf coders. However, if the code is modular and well designed, many essential parts that change (the actual business logic), can be programmed with CFScript, which gives the code a nice layout.

>it will never be as popular as it used to be before the more open and more
>standardised technologies became widely available.

But then again, it's not only a popularity contest. Looking at the CF Forums - people are getting their questions answered better and more frequently than ever before. I'd say there' s a good community support, which wasn't necessarily the case five years ago.

Also, the licensing model sucks, IMHO. Not allowing event gateways in the professional edition is a screwed choice. Small, one man starting companies (such as I) cannot afford CF Enterprise in a small market area - the investment doesn't usually match the potential revenue. Potential web site audiences are small, site hit rates are low, etc. What if I buy a CF Enterprise, worth 7000 euros, and get only that one small-time customer. Bankrupt. So, PHP would be a risk-free choice for the first web site implementation, since it's free. And while you've created your first site with PHP, sticking with it seems an easier choice than moving to another environment.

I'm a CF fanatic, but then again, someone else has always paid for the servers I'm working on. Not any more. Currently I can only sell my consultation work / programming skills to 3rd parties (and as I said, the demand is next to nothing) to later afford CF servers of my own... while I might not like the scenario, I get my satisfaction from knowing that WHEN I've got my CF server up and running, I'm in a winning position compared to others. ;-)

>Sad, but familiar. CF just isn't marketed as well as j2ee and their isn't
>close to being as many cf developers as there are developers in the other
>platforms.

Right again. Go to Adobe.com -> Products -> ColdFusion. What do you find? A page, which advertises CF as any proprietary "toy". Where's "J2EE" Oh yeah, on a small print somewhere in a side bar, where JRun4 is mentioned. What Jrun, asks your boss. Where's "Java"? Nowhere. It's like ColdFusion doesn't even try to compete with pure J2EE/Java implentations. The ColdFusion front page is designed for people who already own ColdFusion, and know what it's about. That's a BAD choice. Who the heck anyway would get interested in a programming language, the only highlights of which are rich forms and reporting?

Adobe/MM must know how great ColdFusion is. The CF users know how great it is. The rest can't be assured easily, and Adobe/MM surely haven't made that any easier within the past years.

>As I said in my last post; cf is in some respects already dead, and in others very much alive -
>it seems to be patchy around the globe.

If you look at the amount of job positions available, I almost agree on that. But as you said, in many places CF is all but dead - and if it gets more ground where it's already more popular, that'll surely help its future everywhere else.

I seriously think it's not ColdFusion's fault it's so rarely known and used, especially since it's based on the J2EE foundation. I'd point a finger towards MM/Adobe's marketing division, which seems to think the same of CF as the majority of folks: "It's a cool web app toy!". The time has gone past those. It's not 1996 anymore. Creating web sites is not about playing around with proprietary gizmos anymore, as it was 10-15 years ago. Advertising "web forms" as the coolest feature of a challenger-for-PHP-and-pureJ2EE in 2006 is just awful.

Wow, this turned out to be flamethrowing against MM/Adobe, while I was about to defend and praise CF. Funny. 🙂

Cheers,
Ari Fernelius
CEO & Software Architect
Fernis Tmi
email: fernis(a)hole.fi
--
"Paypal or Visa, whatever will please ya, as long as you've got the dough" (C)Weird Al Yankovic

Report · May 30, 2006

Report · May 31, 2006

coldfusion has just a fraction of this market - anything done now will be
too little too late I expect. There is no problem with cf as such, only its
relationship with average developers who just don't see much reason to give
it a chance.

Think of this way, coldfusion is just for web. java and .net handle ALL your
needs. The simplicity advantage it has is dissapearing fast too, thank to
incredibly easy RoR and tools like vs.net that manage to make even full
blown oo languages far easie to use to build web apps.

Whilst coldfusion has some things going for it, things that suit beginners,
it has much much more against it. cf will remain an outsider, a cool little
toy for newbies, and never likley to be useful to the masses.

"_KC_" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:e4t4lk$mg4$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Someone at my company mentioned adobe tech support for coldfusion is going
> away?
>
> I couldn't get any further details from them. Are there new
> versions/developments of coldfusion underway and will coldfusion be
> supported
> going forward?
>
> Thanks
>

Adobe Community

Future of Coldfusion