I'm going to but into the conversation just quickly......
..... while I dont really know what Joseph means, I could guess that this is more about a "standard" declaration of the language being published and maintained by a consortium of primary users (such as is done with W3C). That way, MM would not be the sole keeper of the "rules" (and therefore be able to change not only the rules but the implementation at a whim).
If it is not about this type of concept - then I have to agree with Barney. There IS a Cold Fusion standard, and MM own it. And they can (and have in times gone by) changed the rules and the implementation of the rules. Each time they bring out a new version, something has been added or changed in the actual implementation. As long as those changes work reliably, what need is there to actually see a formal spec of the language (other than the documentation that comes with the product)?
The only thing that a formal public spec does allow other vendors to implement the same language in a way that Coldfusion apps built on MM's implementation will work on another implementation (e.g. Bluedragon). But that, really, is a business decision for MM - not for the public.
Let's take MS as another example......
.... IIS runs (amongst other possible things that can work to their plug-in scripting model) _vbscript_ and _javascript_ as it's scripting languages. These, as we know, are not under any formal global specification that is in the hands of a wider group but is at the mercy of MS.
That doesn't stop hundreds of thousands of businesses across the globe implementing an IIS based approach.
We use CFMX. We spend a LOT of money on licences. A formal language spec has no relevance to that decision - only how well we percieve the product itself and MM's commitment to support the product.
Regards
Gary
On 8/6/05, Barney Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/5/05, Joseph Flanigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip />
> A much better energy would be asking how to make CF better business choice.
I'm interested (as an unaffected bystander) in why you think CF not
having a formal language spec that is available to the public makes it
a poor business choice. This might be better taken off-list, but I'm
definitely interested. I don't know about you, but I'm buying a
language implementation, not a langauge specification.
cheers,
barneyb
--
Barney Boisvert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
360.319.6145
http://www.barneyb.com/
Got Gmail? I have 50 invites.
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com).
CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm
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' as the subject of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com).
CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
