Right, But in regards to the comparison of PHP vs CF. Vince was saying the major weakness of PHP is that CF can access the Java API and the .NET API. But CF can't do both at once (At least not in a stable enough configuration where you could deploy it confidently).
Back to Perl, a Year or so ago when MS was showing off .NET the said they had a Java and Perl CLR coming down the line. Of course their own languages were priority one. Whether they were just blowing smoke up our ass... I dunno, but it would be very beneficial to them. I'm sure Bill gets a boner thinking that Java developers would create application for windows, without the need of a JVM. Now, .NET has this feature called COM interop, where you can wrap .NET components to create this pseudo COM object. It's not really a COM object, but it can be accessed just like one, so PHP can already leverage the .NET API... CFMX of course can't really do much with COM or this pseudo-COM. Score one for PHP. Now I'm not trying to say MX can't use COM at all, I'm just saying that the amount of time I have to spend to get COM and CFMX to gel, isn't cost effective. And even when I do get it working, I'm not confident deploying it. So BlueDragon is really CF's only hope. (Although from what I've seen I see no reason to belive BD won't deliver) So when will BD.NET get into a phase where I can play with it? Is it really being called BD.NET? Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -----Original Message----- From: Chris Kief [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:45 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: BlueDragon for .NET (WAS CF - PHP comparisons?) Adam, Looks like you misread Vince's post. :) The CF he was referring to (with full access to the .NET framework) wasn't actually CF at all. It's a version of BlueDragon currently under development by New Atlanta. Have a look at his CFDJ article: http://www.newatlanta.com/downloads/bluedragon/CFDJ_03_01_Blueprints.pdf "BlueDragon for .NET is currently under development with early alpha versions running in our lab. This version of BlueDragon is fully implemented as managed code that executes within the the .NET Common Language Runtime (CLR). We're very excited about BlueDragon for .NET with its promise of highperformance native integration with ADO.NET and COM. Look for a formal announcement of BlueDragon for .NET either before or shortly after this column is published." Cheers! chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:11 AM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: CF - PHP comparisons? > >Vince I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to PHP vs CF. But >lets be honest with ourselves, there is no CF does NOT have full access >to the .NET framework. It barely... barely supports COM anymore. Getting >CF to work well with Windows API is an exercise in patience and >determination. > >Just look at cfComet now... about 80% of their tutorials don't even work >anymore. These same issues will exist in .NET. > >BlueDragon will be nice, but without CFCs and a lot of MX >functionality... it isn't a satisfactory solution for me. > >Adam Wayne Lehman >Web Systems Developer >Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health >Distance Education Division > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:20 AM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: CF - PHP comparisons? > >Hi Mike, > >I tend to agree with your comments regarding the "richness" of PHP. If >you >do a straight comparison of PHP and CFML's built-in functions then they >seem >pretty equal. However, one thing that's changed in the CFML world with >the >introduction of CFMX and BlueDragon is that you now have seamless access >to >the full set of Java APIs from CFML. With the release of BlueDragon for >.NET >you'll similarly have seamless access to the full .NET Framework (APIs) >from >within CFML. > >In effect, the set of CFML functions is being expanded to include all of >the >Java APIs or all of the .NET APIs, depending on which platform you >prefer. > >It seems to me that since PHP is not built on either of the two major >"platform" technologies (Java or .NET), it's "richness" is going to >suffer >in comparison as CFML developers learn to take advantage of the >integration >with Java and .NET. > >Also, look at the way CFMX leveraged the Java platform to implement web >services support (via Apache Axis). PHP is not going to be able to take >advantage of the underlying platform technology the way CFMX did; >instead >they're going to have to implement their own solution "from scratch". It >seems to me that this will be a major disadvantage of PHP. > >Vince Bonfanti >New Atlanta Communications, LLC >http://www.newatlanta.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Alberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 3:33 AM >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: CF - PHP comparisons? >> >> >> Since I develop with both CF and php, I guess I'll add my .02... >> >> Also respectfully to you Dave, this is NOT a terrible >> comparison. With the exception of the part about user defined >> functions, the comparison seems pretty valid to me, even >> though it is quite old. >> >> In addition, php has made great strides in the last couple of >> years: There are at least 3 very good IDE's for php (Zend >> Studio, Nusphere PhpEd and Activestate Komodo), as well as >> some decent simple code editors (php coder/Maguma Studio, etc. >> >> Zend has done some other great things for php, like code >> encryption, acceleration, caching, etc. Granted these >> products are not free, but their new 'Small Business Program' >> lets you get all of that stuff with the IDE for a $295 >> lifetime payment. This is an absolute bargain. >> >> Now I still love the CF language, and it's what I prefer to >> code in, for its ability to let me get projects done quickly. >> But over the years of using CF I've developed my own >> 'methodology', that implements the Application Framework, as >> well as some other ways of doing things that are sort of like >> Fusebox (only simpler). I've personally found that I can use >> this same framework in php as well, and the only thing that >> changes is the syntax of the language. Many things in php >> (switch/case for example) are almost identical in both >> languages (using the CF version with cfscript tags of course). >> >> And don't think that php isn't 'rich'. More than once I've >> sat down to write a function in php and realized part way >> through that there was already a built in function to >> accomplish the task. >> >> To me, it all boils down to what Sean said .... both >> languages have their strengths and weaknesses. Use the right >> tool for the task at hand. I'm not even going to comment on >> ASP (ugh), but php is a fine tool in its own right and even >> though it does take longer to develop with than CF (for me), >> it still allows me to do some cool stuff for clients, which >> makes them (and me) happy. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
