> > But isn't that the point: that this is all your opinion? > > You say "far superior", "less sophisticated", "Not the best" but > this also your opinion. The very article that began this > discussion declares CF "as regarded superior" - but that's only > their opinion.
Yes, just as what you have said is all your opinion. So? > Does CF offer direct TCP Socket manipulation? Nope. Do the vast > majority of web applications need it? Nope. Can you do such a > thing with CF if you absolutely need to? Yup. Sure. But what about the bloke that can't write a Java class to manipulate sockets? What do they do? What if you needed a bit of functionality that doesn't exist in CF and no one else wrote it, and you don't have the skill to write it, and CF doesn't provide a way to do it. What then? > The argument that any language at this level is "better" at tiered > applications is, I think, silly - with certain minimum > capabilities ANY language can be used to build as componentized a > system as you like. After a language reaches a certain point the > point is wholly one of architecture, not the details of > implementation. Well, to a point. How much do you need write it yourself, and how much comes with the product? Why should I bother to reinvent the wheel when someone else already has 9 of the 10 things I'm looking for? > We also have a game of leap-frog being played. Are there features > in ASP.NET that I, as a CF developer, envy? Sure! Which is why > there'll be a CF 7 (or MX2 or whatever they'll call it). Are > there features in CF that ASP developers envy? Sure! Which is > why we'll get .Net 2 (or whatever). I never disagreed with this. I hope to God MM does this, in fact. > > The industry is constantly bettering itself. Many of the features > in ASP.NET that were not in ASP are very clearly borrowed from CF. > Just as many of the features in JSP were borrowed from ASP and CF > and all around. Yup. > > It's my firm belief that using ANY of the big three tools you can > build a successful application. Each has their strengths and > weaknesses, each has annoyances and brillances. Sure. But like I stated before, IMHO, I like ASP.NET. And currently, I think (IMHO - which I have said all along, I have never made an assertion) ASP.NET has more useful functionality than CF does. And, I never said writing something in CF would suck. > > Just like the Mac/PC religious wars this one can't be won because > there is no winner - no contender stands out so far above the > crowd as to be clearly, unambiguously superior. > > For me personally nothing has been better than CF. Nothing has > even come close. That detracts nothing from JSP or ASP.NET however. Hey, I love CF. That doesn't mean I should promote it like it's God's gift to web programming. And that doesn't mean I should defend it just because I use it. I want CF to improve. I want it to be more popular. But right now, there are products out there that have more functionality that I find useful. And, if anyone cares, I think JSP stinks. Although JSTL is a step in the right direction, especially since it looks just like CF :) > > IBM (a prime candidate to top any MS offer for MM by the way) is > already pushing CFMX heavily as a solution adjudct to WebSphere. > MS could, if they choose, do the same thing (and maintain CFs > fanatically loyal developer base). Yes. But IBM has been known to support things that they didn't invent. I don't think MS follows that philosophy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
