LOL! Yeah, well put! CF is a professional development tool - if you want to do free sites and you can't justify paying for CF then CF clearly isn't the answer. PHP and JSP are excellent technologies and can be done for little to no money. I leave ASP out because I hate it, but it may be a good alternative as well.
I just setup Apache / Tomcat / Cocoon on my personal server (Being served off a DirecWAY satellite in about 30 mins - as soon as the guy's done installing it.) and I think it's a fabulous alternative to CF for free/cheap development. Joshua Miller Web Development :: Programming Eagle Web Development LLC www.eaglewd.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] (304) 622-5676 (Clarksburg Office) (304) 456-4942 (Home Office) -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:47 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: light editor (was: oh, man) Well I will pick (d) which was not on the list. If my brother had a business, and needed a dynamic content site, I would design it for him in CF and tell him to get the thing hosted for 19.95 a month. Why on earth would I want to host a business site on a dsl/cable line? Douglas Brown Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark A. Kruger - CFG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:40 AM Subject: RE: light editor (was: oh, man) > Yes but... is there really that much money in basement sites? I think one of > the reasons why so many of them ARE in Perl and PHP is that they are done on > a shoestring budget. I want CF to move in the other direction - then I can > afford to hire someone to do all my basement sites for me (ha). > > -mk > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Ruckelshaus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:55 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: light editor (was: oh, man) > > > OK, so let's take a look at this from another direction. You're a Cold > Fusion developer with a "day job" that shells out the grand for CF Pro (plus > the web server and OS), and the $300+ for CF development studio. Yet, you > want to build a functional, database driven site for your brother's business > (or to show off your dog, or whatever) and you want to host it on an old > computer you have set up as a server that's connected to your cable > modem/DSL line. So, would you rather (a) pirate said software from your > employer (not a good thing); (b) use another cheaper/free technology like > PERL or PHP; (c) have an inexpensive but still very functional and familiar > coding tool and a free/cheap way of serving up CF pages from the server you > have hooked up to your cable modem (or that your web host didn't have to pay > one red cent for, so they said "sure, we'll install CF Express")? > > Hmm, let me see. I pick "C". I just turned down a job offer because I > didn't want to stop developing in CF (offer was from a JSP/Websphere > shop)... > > Not everyone who NEEDS these tools at home is an "amateur". > > Pete > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joshua Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:39 AM > Subject: RE: light editor (was: oh, man) > > > > Why is it that talk of taking CF to the current market of FrontPage > > users makes me cringe? > > > > That's exactly what we DON'T need - is trying to take ColdFusion DOWN to > > a more basic level for home users. I can picture a lot of time and > > effort that would be better focused on the advancement of CF being > > wasted on trying to compete with FrontPage. > > > > I like the fact that Macromedia makes professional tools for > > professional developers. Their products are always strong and robust - I > > think fighting battles on both fronts would only serve to impede the > > progress of Macromedia and in turn ColdFusion. > > > > As long as HomeSite+ doesn't go away I'll have no complaints - but it's > > this constant push to be on everyone's desktop that makes products too > > limited for professional developers. I have used Dreamweaver since 1.0 > > and I love it for what it is, but making DW the front end for a CF > > version of FrontPage makes my blood boil. > > > > Microsoft can have the home user - Macromedia should stick with the > > professional route. > > > > This is like saying they should re-develop Freehand to compete with MS > > Paint. > > > > Joshua Miller > > Web Development :: Programming > > Eagle Web Development LLC > > www.eaglewd.com > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (304) 622-5676 (Clarksburg Office) > > (304) 456-4942 (Home Office) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pete Ruckelshaus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:32 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: light editor (was: oh, man) > > > > > > Yes, but at what cost? FP2002 upgrade is $80 (full is $140), while > > Dreamweaver upgrade is $140 (full is $265)...surely the new > > DreamweaverMX will cost even more than Dreamweaver 4... > > > > I'm not saying that FP2002 is better (certainly it is NOT). However, > > Macromedia needs to create tools for the home/small business market that > > can directly compete, price-wise, with FP (which allows users to create > > data-driven sites). Personally, I think making CFExpress as ubiquitous > > with ISP's as Front Page Extensions are, and having a tool that can help > > home users/small businesses build data driven sites with a $75 software > > package combined with CFExpress and a simple datasource (Access, FoxPro, > > etc.) would be regarded very favorably in the marketplace, especially if > > MM really promoted CFExpress to ISP's and also offered a Linux version > > (since most "cheap" web hosting seems to be Linux-based). > > > > I think the old Costnerism "If you build it, they will come" > > applies...and many of those users that grow to know and love CFExpress > > will eventually "graduate" to fully-blown tools like CF and DW Studio. > > > > Just my 2 cents > > > > Pete > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Trusz, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:01 AM > > Subject: RE: light editor (was: oh, man) > > > > > > <snip> > > > As an additional benefit, DWMX will continue to be a nice > > > out-of-the-box solution for less ambitious sites. You can build your > > > own interactive > > site > > > almost as easily as a static site with DWMX. It will remain > > technologically > > > superior to FP and will likely hold its own, if the company survives. > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
