end to something else. That alone is enough to make it a poor choice for
desktop apps.
The 84mb runtime engine doesn't help either.
And most of all, even if it was technically possible to make desktop apps,
that certainly is not the main area where CF will be used and thus pricing
is much more likely to remain at current levels geared towards server
deployment. There is coral which is geared toward desktop apps (still
pointless in my opinion) and a free version of BlueDragon which could be
used for the purpose.
So are you playing devil's advocate or do you really believe CF would be
good to use for desktop apps?? :-)
Sam
----------------------------------------
Blog http://www.rewindlife.com
TeamMM http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:02 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Blackstone @ CF-FUN '04
>
> But Sam,
>
> The pricing is based on a distro modlel of thousands (or hundreds of
> thousands).
>
> If you have a pricing based on hundreds of millions of
> desktops, that's
> quite another thing.
>
> What it boils down to is that CFMX is becoming something
> analogous to a
> UCSD p-code compiler/interpreter -- that was used to create the
> second-generation of microcomputer apps (and much of the original Mac
> GUI.
>
> CFML is easier to learn/write/maintain apps than Pascal, Java, APL,
> JSP, PHP, Perl C,.....
>
> why not use it?
>
> Dick
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
