Dick, Oh, I agree. CF should keep getting better (and I believe it has been doing just that).
My only point is that they'll always be a better way to do something, whether it is a small piece of code or a complex process, and whenever that is the case the solution is to use the right add-on or extension technology. Fact of the matter is that CF has supported extensions ever since the CFX API was added way back in CF2. Then came COM, CORBA, Java, etc. All along there has been an understanding - CF cannot be the best at everything, nor can any other language or technology or platform. So, yep, suggestions on how to improve CF are useful, and we'll keep doing just that. Just don't expect CF to do it all, it can't and frankly it shouldn't. --- Ben -----Original Message----- From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:14 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code Aw, 'cmon Ben, one of the great advantages of CF is it can address a broad range of applications -- all Joe wants do to is extend the range & help MM sell into a broader range of solutions. Will MM get them all? --Never!. Can MM get more? All of us certainly hope so! What if optimizing the code made CF a viable option to 20% more of the market than they already have -- anyone of could sell the advantages of CF over JSP into that marketplace! Geeze, I did it again! Dick On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 07:47 PM, Ben Forta wrote: > Some parts of your app should not be written in CF, no one has ever > said > otherwise. Similarly parts of your app should not be written in Java. > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
