1. MS SQL costs, MySQL does not 2. MS SQL has Stored Procedures and other features missing from MySQL 3. MS SQL easier to maintain 4. IIS sucks 5. IIS is easier to maintain and work with than Apache 6. CF costs, Perl is free 7. Perl is a pain to read, write, and maintain unless your very well versed in perl 8. CF is easy to read, write and maintain even if your not very well versed in CF The cost for MS SQL/CF is more in the short run, but when you get into programming time, new features, maintance and all MS SQL/CF wins hands down and is less than what would be paid over time with LAMP.
>We have a client that is trying to decide whether to go with my company or >another company. We are a CF/MS SQL shop, and the other company does LAMP >development (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl). > > > >I was wondering if anyone on this list can give some ideas of the pros and >cons of using CF/MS SQL vs LAMP. > > > >I know for a fact that perl code is harder to read and maintain, and that's >it's probably slower since it's interpreted every time instead of >pre-compiled as CF is. I know MS SQL has more features (such as stored >procs) that MySQL lacks. > > > >What other pros does CF/MySQL have over LAMP that might sway a potential >client? Personally, except for the fact that LAMP is free, I don't see any >advantages of it at all. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Russ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:208060 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=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
