>> ASP.NET is taking market away from CF! WHY? > >Are you sure? Do you have numbers for that? Either way, you're >probably right, but if so, can you show that it's for any >technological reasons other than the gullibility of IT managers when >it comes to the Microsoft marketing machine?
I'd like you to prove that statement. I suppose that IT managers that use CF aren't gullible, and aren't susceptible to Macromedia's marketing machine. > >Secondly, would we _want_ ColdFusion to have the same market share as >ASP.NET? Macromedia (compared to MS) is a fairly small company. >Almost nothing is as dangerous to small companies as over-rapid >expansion. They do what they do (provide a great server product to a >somewhat niche market), and do it well. If their market share tripled >overnight, do you think the company could keep up its standards? Well, yeah, I'd like to see CF have the same market share. > >> Will Blackstone fix the shift that's taking place? I say no! >> CF is still outrageous to purchase. > >This is a shortsighted statement. For most purposes, TCO for CF is >usually lower. Its development tools are cheaper, and work tends to >get done much faster. For any decent company, the price of CF is >small potatoes compared to the price of getting an application >developed on any platform. Proof please? I can develop apps faster with VS.NET than, say, DW any day of the week, but then again, that's just me, so I'd rather not extrapolate my one experience into the whole world's, which is what everybody else seems to be doing. > >> The licensing for the .NET SDK is free as is the licensing to deploy. > >To quote a great author, TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A >Free Lunch. .NET is not free as in beer. You don't think the price >of your Windows license was built into the price of your server? Seeing as how most people use CF on Windows, this becomes a bit of a non issue. > >> I'm not trying to attack CF here, I'm really not. I'm just trying to >> wake people up, because I think we've been lulled to sleep by Blackstone. > >I think I'm pretty well awake - I've been developing for both CF and >.NET for a while now, and would like to think that I have more insight >into both worlds than most. So do I. > >> Blackstone is not equivalent to .NET in power and performance. > >Well, that's because comparing CF and .NET is an apples-to-oranges >comparison. .NET can be compared to Java, and ASP.NET can be compared >to CF. Java is easily as powerful as .NET, if intrinsically more so >because of its ability to perform like tasks across multiple >platforms. And as any Java programmer will tell you that's worked on cross platform apps, this is not nearly as easy as Sun will lead you to believe. And of course there's Mono. .NET was the best thing to happen to Java. It put Sun in the hot seat, and there's lots of developer push now to simplify Java (EJBs esp.). There was a push before .NET was around, but it's really been amplified seeing as how .NET actually showed that, yes, it was possible to write EJB-like objects without, say, implementing 3 different interfaces for no real reason other than to satisfy the design gods. And there's always been Sun's reluctance on Web Services, which has given us the happy mess that is AXIS. > >To me, CF is more power in ASP.NET in that it gives developers an >easier way to abstract and build n-tiered applications through CFCs, >opposed to ASP.NET's forcing "classic" ASP developers to learn VB.NET >or C# in order to build a decently architected application (on a >basic level, meaning they don't so SQL in their code-behind). Huh? ASP.NET is more powerful than CF in that it gives developers an easier way to abstract and build n-tiered applications through objects. There we go :) > >> Yeah, maybe it's easy for us to code our simple CFML, >> and yeah that <cfdocument> is pretty neat, but there are >> a few factors making CF'ers like me change hats, >> and put on the .NET one! > >Yes, it is very easy to develop applications that do things our >clients want in CF, and Macromedia identifies things that are >difficult (like generating PDFs) and makes a point of simplifying them >in later releases. I do like how ASP.NET will have things like Master Pages, so that I don't have to roll my own layout manager. Both companies do a good job on this, but do have a different focus when it comes what requests they want to satisfy. >2. If you mean platform, why would they? Why abandon using one of the >largest and most robust frameworks available (Java)? To get some market share within the Windows world (e.g. places that don't use Java, and don't want to). >I'll agree that ASP.NET has some very "fresh" ideas, but even >Microsoft is rolling back on some of them. The code-behind model >isn't popular with a lot of 'classic' ASP developers, and we're >starting to see support for code-inside and code-beside creep back in. It isn't? I go to weblogs.asp.net every day, and I never see any mention of that. I also go the www.asp.net forums, and I never see any mention of that. If you're talking about partial classes, hey, it seems that MS is listening to their developers, and code-behind is still in there for 2.0, so I don't see what MS is backpedaling on. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:187396 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
