It's also a really old comparison... probably came about just when v.6 first hit the shelves.
And at the end of the day, language more often than not simply boils down to personal preference and best tool for the job. Nothing more. Mark On 19/10/05, John Ottenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes and no. > > To me it is kind of a surface level comparison which doesn't do anyone any > good. > > For example the Data Manipulation in CF can be done either implicitly or > directly (myquery.fieldname[rec]). > > Also the extendibility comparison seems to focus on COM objects, which was > fine in CF <= 5.0 but nowadays CFMX can be extended using Java, not to > mention CFC's. > > The database speed comparison is BS, mainly because the details of the > database setup, querys used, machine speed are not detailed. Maybe he was > clueless and didn't know he was developing .NET on a speedy resource rich > server, but the CF code was on a dog of machine. Who knows? > > Oh well, I'm not trying to stick up for CF, but I wouldn't use that page to > decide between the two. > > /rant > > John -- E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.compoundtheory.com ICQ: 3094740 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
