> > + .NET has more "out of the box" functionality. > > Do you really mean this?? I would have thought typically CFMX has more > out-of-the-box.
I've never really looked at what is *in* the .NET box so I don't know, however the general consensus in the links I posted was that .NET has more standard stuff than the CFML language on its own - points were raised about Java integration but that is not "out of the box" as such. I remember a question being put to Ben Forta when he was out here earlier in the year - something like "how does CFMX compare to .NET?". His answer was along the lines of "MS have stopped competing in CFMX space and have started competing in the J2EE space" (Neither of those are direct quotes - just my warped recollection). I kind of got that impression from these links. What you can do with CFMX + Java is really something and the integration is very tight, but that's not really what I was referring to. > And then some. Plus if the web controls are ActiveX driven there is the > platform dependency card. Reading about these "web controls" today has made me think they are truly evil. Again MS is trying to get a browser based application to behave like a desktop application (just like their DHTML). I think this is partially missing the point of why the web actually works so well. I don't think most of them are Active X although I read there is a 22MB toolkit you can use. They way I understand it its mostly using iLayers/iFrames and Javascript to capture client side events, send them to the server and return new data to populate standard HTML form controls. I think Flash is much nicer for this sort of stuff in most cases. > Isn't this abstraction trying to emulate what CF has done for years? No this is more like the Dreamweaver WYSIWYG vs. Homesite debate (drag & drop vs. hard coding). It really depends on who you ask, however one guy in there mentioned preferring to completely scrap pages that had been done via drag & drop stuff rather than dive into the code generated by the ASP.NET tools for all the usual MS mark up (TM) reasons. > The license cost for Pro is nothing in the scheme of things. The > license cost of Enterprise or CFMX for J2EE is nothing compared to the > J2EE server implementation. Plus you might consider the cost of > Win2k/3000 server itself. Which is very expensive. I think we will be preparing some material on this side of things, as its where CF really shines from a business perspective. However a lot of corporate seem to put MS licensing costs in the same basket as death and taxes. > http://www.cffaq.com/ has some good facts about number of large > companies using the technology, and the like. US Centric but good > nonetheless. Plenty of great Australian reference accounts to be found. Will check it out. I also have a stash of links I like to pull out - big sites running on Coldfusion. Will hopefully compile a bit of a list one day. My favourite is the www.section508.gov. > I reckon you ought to throw some in there. Cos architecturally that is > what your comparing. Will start hunting for those. > I'd also note that VB/COM to .NET is not an easy > migration -- conceptually they are very different. I learnt today that COM and .NET are not supposed to mix. > It is a common > misconception amongst companies wedded M$ that there training/upskilling > costs will be less going to .NET. I don't think these people are really that interested in having any in house dev people. > Hope that helps a little, Definitely does. I'm thinking of pooling all these resources - maybe chuck them up on one of the user group sites? Cheers Mark ______________ Mark Stanton Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MX Downunder AsiaPac DevCon - http://mxdu.com/
