I hope MM DOESNT need a better reasoning to impove CFMX than the below. Gosh, we are trying to help improve CFMX..!
Well said Dick.. "> I've been on board since 3.0 and I totally agree -- the books are > getting so big (and the ***type**** so small) I can hardly lift or read them!" > The same is true for MM's customers (and CF developers' clients) the > costs tend to go up significantly (if not exponentially) if you have to > introduce external components into a site (custom tags, objects, JSP > code, etc -- they all have a cost) Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:47 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code > > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 08:17 PM, Ben Forta wrote: > > > 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. > > I agree with that too. But, the less often you have to do that (leave > CF), the greater the appeal of CF, from a business standpoint. > > Jesse made a good point that to support OS X, MM would have to get new > machines, training, yadda, yadda, yadda -- 99% the same CF code, but a > totally different environment. > > > What about shared hosts -- you likely aren't allowed to do any of these > things -- so you have to develop a CF-only solution? > > But you know all this! > > > > > 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. > > I believe you (MM) will continue to improve CF -- and I strongly > support your efforts to do so! > > Dick > > > > > --- 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. > >> > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.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
