Matt, >C is a procedural language, C++ is an >object-oriented language, and C# is an object-oriented garbage collected >virtual machine based language.
I wouldn't call cf5 and cfMX the same due to CFCs and its object oriented slant on its previous fundamentals. Not too mention they compile to completely different code, but for the sake of argument we say they are the same, based on syntax. Will I be able to develop with the CF syntax in 20 years? I fear not. Will I be able to develop with a C syntax of some sort in 20 years? Most likely. I know we're getting really far off topic, but I don't subscribe to community. But I do have one question? Exactly why is MS the evil empire again? Do you think there is a correlation between how MS is viewed in capitalism and how the US is viewed in international politics? It just seems like everyone wants to take pot-shots at the guys on top. Even though these supposed empires do more good for everyone as a whole, than the voices who condemn them. But whatever is whatever. In the grand scheme of things we have no control over the future, so why bicker about it? Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 2:36 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: MS CF? > VB developers who were abandoned? I felt no more abandoned by .NET than > I did with CFMX. It's just a progression. It's an evolution. I mean CF5 > to CFMX was a much bigger gap and the progression from VB to VB.NET. You > act as if VB and C++ don't exist. Not too mention C# is not a > replacement for C++. > You may be one of the few VB developers who doesn't feel abandoned. And BTW, MSFT is marketing C# as a replacement for C++. > Further, are you spiting C# for giving you a language and CRLs to > compile your code to nearly NEwhere? Hate to break it to you, but a lot > of people have wanted a language like that for a long time. > I am not spiting anything or anyone. Just pointing out that MSFT doesn't give developers security. > You can mention DAO and RDO fairly. As well as I can mention Generator > and Homesite. Which were products, NOT technologies. You can't blame MS > for abandoning older technologies for better ones. However, I can gripe > about MM ditching a product its CTO said a year prior would not die. > Only to be replaced with an inferior product. You know Ben Forta told me > point blank at the Dreamweaver gripe session that advanced cold fusion > developers are the minority, and they have to support the majority to be > a successful company (hence WYSIWYG Dreamweaver bumps Homestie). > Everyone is in it for the money. Don't spite one company and praise > another when they share the same goals and faults. > I didn't spite MSFT and praise Macromedia. > Bottom line is that 20 years ago I could have started as a C developer. > And I could still be one today. Maybe my syntax may change a bit over > the years, C - C++ - C#, but at least I'll still have marketable skills > 20 years later. That is security. I just have this feeling that > macromedia will sell me down the river if it can make them a profit. > I highly doubt that above statement is true. C, C++, and C# are FUNDAMENTALLY different languages. C is a procedural language, C++ is an object-oriented language, and C# is an object-oriented garbage collected virtual machine based language. -Matt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
