> > writing ASP.NET code in any generic text editor. It's
> > simply not that difficult.
>
> It might not be difficult, but it is more time consuming.
I'm personally finding the difference to be less and less over time,
actually.
> Even the best tools can't hide the complexity that is
> required. They can improve the situation, but they can't win.
> This is why I still believe CFML beats ASP.NET even when using
> VS.NET.
I agree that CFML is easier than ASP.NET - it's still my language of choice.
My point was simply that it's not useful to talk about ASP.NET development
sans tools, since the tools are an integral part of the development process.
The appropriate comparison, in my opinion, is ASP.NET with VS.NET versus
CFMX with whatever editor you like. The strength of CFMX is that it's simple
enough to write that you don't need an abstraction to hide complexity and a
complex toolset to build applications.
> That remains to be seen how it will work out long term. In
> the history of software development, it is rare of have an
> abstraction of this nature work out. A perfect example is
> remote objects. There have been all kinds of attempts at
> making remote object invocation require no knowledge of the
> fact that the object itself is remote. However, sometimes you
> need to know it is remote and because that has been
> abstracted away disastrous results follow.
I agree, and I think that the VS.NET model has serious limitations today. I
don't think it's suitable for building complex high-volume web applications
now. On the other hand, for the average intranet application, it's probably
perfectly ok.
> > So, I'm not sure whether a Visual Studio-workalike for CF
> > would make CF developers any more efficent than they already
> > are. In addition, I don't think it would make them more
> > efficient than ASP.NET developers using the same development
> > model, since ASP.NET supports this model while CF doesn't.
>
> If that is the case then why do CFML developers use tools? I
> mean if it can't make them more efficient, then why use them?
I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not saying that CF
developers don't need or want tools. We all use tools. I doubt many of us
are building cfm files by piping individual characters into a file. However,
most CF developers are successful using comparatively simple tools -
glorified text editors at best. I don't think a VS.NET-style GUI builder
that provided an illusion of an event-driven environment would be embraced
by CF developers, because CF doesn't support that illusion, and CF
developers are knowledgeable enough not to require that illusion, unlike
people who've been building VB desktop applications for the last ten years.
If you take a look at the CF development tools available now - Dreamweaver,
Homesite+, cfeclipse, He3 - only one of them provides a useful WYSIWYG
development environment, and many people here simply aren't interested in
it. They don't need it or don't want it. I actually like Dreamweaver quite a
bit now, and I think that a lot of the HTML and CSS functionality in design
view is phenomenal, but I still find myself in code view most of the time.
So the question isn't whether or not to have tools, but what sort of tools
will they be?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
