My $.02... I don't think anyone will argue with you.
The discussion here exactly follows the discussion that has taken place in the Java camp for a long time. Lack of standardization is an inhibitor to adoption. Java managed to get around this somewhat because it was basically the first guy on the block, and because it is now slowly opening up to outside "influences." No one wants to buy into a technology set that may go belly up with the next round of dot bomb bankruptcies, and having a language that is part of a standards process help to allay those fears. How many times have we seen threads where the topic is "help me justify CF over [jsp/asp/java]." Part of that is marketing, but part of that is wanting to stay with standards, or (in the absence of good standards) the big boys. Just because a tag starts with CF doesn't mean it's part of the CFML language. Right now, MM is the only group that determines that. Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is CFMX J2EE implemented?)) Let me see if I follow your second argument here. I create a work. Someone else copies the work. Because that someone else copied my work, I should give up control of it to a third person? The entire system of intellectual copywrite that exists at the moment would cause this to fail and rightfully so. If the creator of a work can lose ownership because someone else makes use of it, then why bother creating it in the first place. Just wait for someone else to create something and steal it from them. I have nothing against Blue Dragon, CF_Anywhere and every other CF parser that exists. I think it's a great thing that they feel CF is a strong enough language that they would even want to write a parser for it. But I do have to recognize that the language is owned by MM and they have every right to say what's part or not part of it. The fact that MM says what's in the language but is willing to listen to our suggestions gives as much of a level playing field as having the language controlled by someone else. > I should probably stay out of this--- oh, what the hell. > > I think that a lot of excellent points have been made in this thread. > > Here are my thoughts: > > 1) One entity should own and control the CFML language! > > 2) Any number of entities can/should offer competitive implementations > of the language! > > 1 is currently MM -- it would be counterproductive for others to offer > dialects of the language that are specific to an implementation > > 2 is currently MM & BD -- if BD (or others) are successful, then > ownership/control of the CFML language should pass to a 3rd-party > standards group -- then implementers could compete on a level playing > field. > > I would personally prefer that BD force MM to relinquish control of the > language by providing better implementations/lower costs; rather than > alternative CFLM commands and functions. > > Dick > > BTW, Vince, I'd like typing of variables and Nulls in CFML :) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
