Comments inline. --- Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. MS SQL costs, MySQL does not Well, that's not exactly true. These days you can purchase a MySQL Network subscription that includes 'certified' software that has several performance enhancements over the regular distributable.
> 2. MS SQL has Stored Procedures and other features > missing from MySQL MySQL supports stored procedures, foreign keys and transactions at this point (some of these features are still in beta). > 3. MS SQL easier to maintain There are a number of GUIs for managing MySQL databases these days, among them phpmyadmin. It's a stripped down web client that I find easier to use than Enterprise Manager. > 4. IIS sucks Yep. > 5. IIS is easier to maintain and work with than > Apache Not necessarily true, especially over time. Once you nail down what it is you are trying to do with Apache, it pretty much just works no matter what else you do to your system. With IIS, the latest service packs always seem to mess something up... > 6. CF costs, Perl is free > 7. Perl is a pain to read, write, and maintain > unless your very well versed in perl That really depends on how the Perl code was written and what conventions were used within the code. I have run into some extraordinarily bad CF apps over the years that had me yearning for Perl's tight syntax. > 8. CF is easy to read, write and maintain even if > your not very well versed in CF See above. > 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. That's speculative unless you are talking about the unique features CF possesses (things like Flashpaper). One thing LAMP has going for it over CF in terms of support over time is the huge number of content management systems that are currently out there and can be used as frameworks for new applications. Whereas with CF I spend a fair amount of time on each project working out the structural details of the project up front, with LAMP I typically spend a short amount of time considering relative benefits to going with one CMS platform over another. In terms of long term support, I would argue LAMP actually has the upper hand because most of the widely available CMS platforms out there are peer-reviewed and widely available. Finding a good CF programmer is a challenge, but finding a good Mambo, PHP-Nuke, Drupal, Wordpress or Scoop developer is not that difficult. M > >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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:208082 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
