It almost sounds as if you're suggesting that NewAtlanta 'give up' in the best interests of the ColdFusion and the 'application server space' communities. I think that's absurd.
While I'm not a BlueDragon user, I can tell you that I *do* like having choices, and not the lack of them. I think BD should put whatever they want into their product by way of proprietary extensions since its ultimately the consumer that is the deciding factor in whether it was worthwhile or not. This has been true of the SQL world for years; core standard language with proprietary extensions per manufacturer. Don't like to lock yourself in to a particular proprietary niche? Then you have the utterly simple option of not using them. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Rafferty Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 7:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] OT: BD / CF I'd like to hear Vince's response to Jeff as well. These are my concerns too. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Vince, > >It is clear you've built a viable product, but I have some pretty big >concerns about BD as a long-term CF'er. > >First of all, CF has survived on the strength and viability of the >company that has developed it - Allaire now Macromedia. How does >diluting MM's income stream (and thereby potentially threatening its >viability) help the language? The marketing clout of MM and its >garnered goodwill in the business world is a big part of why CF is >considered a viable solution by many. Regardless of anyone's opinion of >MM as a corporation, they have navigated some pretty difficult waters >and remained viable - a substantial accomplishment. > >Secondly, how does developing different versions of CF from different >vendors help the language? Lack of standardization can be a huge >downside for the marketing of a product. > >Thirdly, aren't you trading on the good name and reputation of CF? The >good name and reputation that was created by the efforts and dollars >Allaire/Macromedia (and represents a substantial asset). Are you in any >way compensating MM for this? Do you think you should? > >It isn't as though CF was ever promoted as an open-source solution - I >would think it is the intellectual property of MM? If so, how is it >legal to "add features" to core CF? Doesn't this get borderline into >Sun Vs. MS type stuff? > >You can of course say that competition is a good thing and it is - but >there is already tons of competition in the application server space. >I have doubts as to whether diluting efforts within the scope of this >application server technology benefits us as a developer community >(whose livelihood substantially depends currently on the viability of >MM and its marketing clout). Maybe its all good, but I really need to >be convinced of this. > >Jeff > ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
