I think there is one great point in all of this, not long ago Yahoo (I think the World's most visited web site) would not even have considered ColdFusion at all, I am pretty sure of that.
Also you have to put money down to purchase CF. PHP, ASP and JSP (TomCat etc) are notionally and perceivably FREE? Even though Macromedia are probably dismayed because of this (loss of $'s) I really see it is a positive for CF. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt, CTO Webapper http://www.webapper.com Downey CA Office 562.243.6255 AIM - webappermb "Webapper - Making the NET work" -----Original Message----- From: Michael Ross [mailto:ross-5@;medctr.osu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT:Yahoo moving to PHP You know, I am so sick and tired of having to defend CF, at work to other developers here....... You know I don't see php, or asp people having do defend using those languages..... WTF!! F%$# it I am changing career's and becoming a firefighter....... >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/30/02 01:07PM >>> No it's not, in and of itself. However, thanks to CFMX, you can now build CFML-style UDFs, and thus swap out a CFML call with a CFSCRIPT-like UDF call. Check out http://www.cflib.org/, if you haven't in the past. The libraries are full of these. Robert Everland wrote: >I use it as much as I can also, but it is by no means a replacement for many >of the cf tags. > >Robert Everland III >Web Developer Extraordinaire >Dixon Ticonderoga Company >http://www.dixonusa.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kreig Zimmerman [mailto:kkz@;foureyes.com] >Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:34 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re: OT:Yahoo moving to PHP > > >That's pretty much what I've done at my company as well. > >CFSCRIPT is just so much cleaner, and easier to read. > >CFML tends to be only used when we are annotating HTML. > >Fregas wrote: > > > >>I know a development firm that tends not to use <CF> at all, but >>instead puts everything in <CFSCRIPT> that they can. They claim tags >>are deprecated in CFML. ;) >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Rob Rohan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:42 PM >>Subject: RE: OT:Yahoo moving to PHP >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>CF syntax is not ugly, but i do get tired of typing < > >>>Thank God for cfscript >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:jeff@;farcryfly.com] >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:28 PM >>>To: CF-Talk >>>Subject: Re: OT:Yahoo moving to PHP >>> >>> >>> That is interesting... >>> Check out Slide 22 . >>> >>> I wouldn't say that CF has an ugly syntax. ( I doubt many on this >>>list would ). >>> >>> >>>At 05:13 PM 10/29/2002 -0500, you wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Check it out, in their presentation for why they chose PHP, they make >>>>reference as to why they didn't go with CF or ASP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>http://public.yahoo.com/~radwin/talks/yahoo-phpcon2002.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Ben >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
