Dave Watts wrote: >>However, for the 5-10 person development shop (which most >>development companies are) this is not a practical solution. >>It would cost more to set up the infrastructure for this then >>it would to simply deal with the extremely rare patch >>problems when they arise. > > > Most development shops may be that small, but they don't account for the > majority of developers, I suspect. Most companies that I've worked with do, > in fact, have this sort of environment, and it's integral to their > development process.
Hmm... I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on which one has the majority. Unless one of us (or a reader) has some hard facts for us. At the moment, we simply appear to be commenting off our own experiences. ;) > How else do you test the software you write? For me personally, I use virtualization when I can, but when doing development work for another company, we usually create a "dev" environment on the same server. When you're doing development work for folks who have nothing more then a shared hosting environment (or if you're lucky, a VPS) you don't have the luxury of a completely separate development environment. As a developer, I realize that this is not the ideal situation, but it is the most practical in many situations. If I were to refuse to do development work for a client because they did not have a development environment, how long would that client remain my customer? Not long. If I were to set up a development environment of my own that was identical to my clients - only to test things that will probably not be a problem for me - how long would I be able to stay in business by investing all that additional (and usually unnecessary) time and money? Not long. All business must do what's practical - and berating someone for not doing so is incorrect unless you know where that person is coming form. You seem to work with (and thus discuss) development solutions for larger companies who have already made a significant investment in a certain kind of technology. But for the majority of folks that *I* work with, this is not the case, and thus recommending not-so-costly solutions is piratical for me and my clients. It seems to me to be more of a norm on this list as well. And, > except for hardware-specific stuff, you can do this pretty cheaply and > easily through virtualization. Agreed. =) However, don't forget the time investment that's involved with this. The time investment can also add up pretty quickly - particularly for those of us with simple 5-10 person shops. >>Maybe he did miss your point, but it looks to me like you are >>also missing his. Why pay for something that you have to >>learn - when you could just learn it without having to pay >>for it before-hand? > > > The syntax is nearly identical, and it's available for free. But, that's > irrelevant. If someone asked me to recommend web server software, and the > most important thing they were looking for is the ability to rewrite URLs, > I'd unhesitatingly recommend Apache. On the other hand, if someone was > already using IIS and needed to rewrite URLs all of a sudden, I probably > wouldn't recommend they switch web servers just for that ability. Agreed. =) It totally depends on the situation. >>I personally see nothing wrong with taking time to learn >>something that could potentially save my company time and >>money - and how will I know for sure unless I explore those >>options? I think that is all most people are trying to do >>when they post things to this list regarding non-MS software. >>Quite frankly, I don't understand why you are so against >>learning about your alternatives. I don't know about you, but >>I like learning new things even if it's just for the sake of >>learning. It's part of why I enjoy the technology industry so >>much. So why not put that effort somewhere that would be >>beneficial to me and my company? > > > If every time someone posted a problem they were having with Apache, would > the appropriate response be to say that IIS beats the pants off Apache, and > they should switch? If someone has a problem with doing something in CF, > should I suggest ASP.NET or PHP instead? Or is evangelism only appropriate > when suggesting a replacement for MS products? I did not see evangelism as much as I saw someone making a practical suggestion for a problem. There was probably some evangelism involved, but we all do that with things we like. It's human nature - and beneficial really. If something has helped you, I'd like to know about it because it may be helpful to me as well. Not all suggestions to evaluate Apache (or any alternative technology for that matter) should be considered evangelism. > I don't have anything against learning new things, but I don't care at all > for the evangelism. If someone says "Apache beats the pants off IIS, but it > has a learning curve", they should be prepared to accept the obvious > response that ease of use has value. That is a pretty broad statement - and in some cases would probably be incorrect. I suspect that the individual who stated this was thinking of a particular situation. In that situation apache might indeed have beat the pants off IIS. ;) All of the arguments that you've made > against IIS are the same sort of arguments people generally make against CF, > and if CF has proven anything, it's the value of ease of use. I don't recall making arguments against IIS. I agree that it has it's place in some cases, and indeed, ease of use is very important. What I HAVE said is that Apache is NOT as difficult as some would have you believe. >>However, seeing as I tend to avoid MS-related technology, I >>haven't dealt with it much. > > > I thought you liked learning new things. Why are you so against learning > about your alternatives? Hahaha... as soon as I wrote this I knew you were going to ask me this. ;) I should have elaborated. I tend to avoid MS-related technology because of it's "quicksand" or "slippery slope" effect. If you build a ..NET application, then you're immediately forced to purchase a Windows server to host it on. In addition, since ASP.NET works so well with MS SQL Server, it would "boost productivity" if I were to invest MS SQL Server licenses. Oh, and since MS Visual Studio has all these nifty things you can do with both of those environments, I'll "boost productivity" even more by purchasing Visual Studio for all your developers... right? It's true that you're not *forced* into buying these products, but it's typically not very easy to use alternatives. You've said this yourself: "What if I can't use Kerberos? (There are many reasons why this might be the case.) In any case, why should I go through all that work when IIS supports it out of the box?" Using MS technologies together is just easier right? After a while though, you and your company will find themselves forced into whatever direction MS wants you to go because you've made such a heavy investment into them. It's quicksand - a slippery slope - and difficult to get out of once you're there. This is your entire argument about why large companies should stick with their existing infrastructure. Once you're there, it makes logical business sense to stay there - as you continually say. But dependency on one company is not where I, personally, want to be. This is NOT true with CFML. CF runs on multiple platforms, and there are Cold Fusion interpretors available from multiple companies. With CFML you get the absolute best of both worlds. You get ease of use - right along with your independence from any particular company. So... that's why I avoid MS-related Technology. NOT because I have an aversion to learning. =) Honestly, I'd love to take a more in-depth look at Mono and the good things those folks are doing with it. If I had one client... just one... who asked me to evaluate the possibility of moving their app from ASP.NET to Mono, I would be all over it in a heartbeat. You don't have any ASP.NET applications you want migrated to Mono do you? If so, please let me know - it would be an honor to help someone out of the quicksand. -Jordan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:267334 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
