:) i'm not aruging anything PHP is simple to learn. Its basic C, perl, C++ ish type code not as easy as cf but easier then other things.
I'm simply saying that he said he had to learn PHP to pay his bills and i said go for it its easy. Only point that matters is we have to do what we have to do to pay our bills, nobodies saying big clients are bad but when you're a little fish freelancer who has to live off little companies when the product costs too much for little companies to afford you have to go with what the little company can afford. You're completely turning this into something it was never even about lol lol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 AM Subject: RE: My last CF site? > > Yup php is as quickly learned and effective if not more for > > some things but its major selling point for clients is FREE. > > Who wants to pay for a product > > (CF) when you can do everything as quickly for free. > > I still won't "admit" that PHP is as easy to learn nd use as CF. After > using both I just can't believe that people are arguing this. > > I will agree totally that it's better for some things (and that CF is > better for things and ASP is better for some things and JSP is better > for some things and so on). Each and every language definitely has it's > strengths and weaknesses. > > > But luckily some of the bigger companies still pay for CF so > > all is not lost > > And many of the smaller ones as well. > > But the contention that "getting the big clients" is somehow a bad thing > (not made by you but a general feeling in this thread) is bizarre to me. > > The argument seems to be made with no thought. The complaint is that CF > costs money and that PHP doesn't. Just for argument's sake we can say > that both languages are EXACTLY the same. > > In that case the simple question is "what would you do?" Until a > profitable, attractive open-source market is established (which I hope > it is) companies are not going to give up the paid software model. So a > company like Macromedia competeing against a (for argument's sake > remember) identical competator needs to do what? > > Well, I can see them adding enteprise features (that the free software > lacks), touting their support model (which the free software lacks), > building in integration with popular client-side products (which the > free software lacks), building in integration with entrprise level > server products (which the free software lacks) and so on. > > Macromedia has done all of this and plans on more (further integration > with development tools and popular multimedia technologies for example). > > That's still assuming that PHP and CF are EXACTLY the same otherwise. > (And I simply don't believe that, as I assume many other don't as well.) > > However even when adding these features MM has still kept CF the > cheapest paid tool in its class. > > So I guess the question remains, how would you (folks) market CF today? > If it's "losing" to PHP then what can be done? > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
