> However it's riduculous to compare those versions to the modern versions: remembe what ELSE was available then? NOTHING was very good at the time (well, except for Perl, I suppose). WebPlus a poor CF clone, Java was so much in it's infancy you couldn't really build squat (except for memory-leak-ridden applets), ASP was promising but had some SEVERE problems of it's own. Of course it's ridiculous. But it's still happening. I know some people that still won't go near CF with a ten foot pole because of their experiences back in the 3-4 days. > Compared to what was available at the time CF 3 and 4 were actually about evenly placed, I think. We built some damn fine applications on them (actually we built some damn fine applications on versions 1.5 and 2 as well). Actually I thought CF3 was light years ahead of everything else at the time. CF 4 was unstable to the point of being unusable, CF4.0.1 solved a lot of those problems though. CF4.5 finally fixed everything else, and CF5 was quite nice. > I agree that people seem to be carrying outdated impressions of CF - but why just CF? You rarely hear people complaining about ASP's threading model (which inversion 1.0 REALLY sucked) but I still hear people spouting off that CF isn't multi-threaded (it is, of course and has been for years) or that it can't handle any significant load (it's been able to since 4) or that it lacks some other basic neccesity that it's featured for years (like structured exception handling, recursion, custom functions, etc). > I'm not sure why this is, but it definately is a problem. I think MM needs to do some better marketing around the better stability of CFMX. As for the other features, I've never ever seen any sort of marketing around the better language features that later versions of CF had, even from Allaire.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
