I'm with Ryan, I don't like this article at all. I believe he uses
faulty logic to draw his conclusions - arguments based on false
premises, invalid inferences, yada yada...
Some people will write anything!
Thanks,
Joe Kelly
On 10/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I've worked with CF for 10 years now, and I've been working with C# for the
> past year and a half. Some reasons why beginners choose ColdFusion is
> because of the quick learning curve. You can get up and running and
> productive relatively fast with ColdFusion. However, the market has
> changed. The argument that you can be more productive faster with
> ColdFusion then ASP may have held water when ASP was first introduced (pre
> .net). But I do not think that argument is valid any longer. .net offers
> the developer a multitude of options that are just not available with CF.
>
>
>
> I am a diehard CF fan, but I'm equally impressed with C# and VisualStudio
> 2005. Looking at the job boards will quickly tell you where employers are
> (at least in the DFW area). A recent look at texas.computerjobs.com had
> 120 C# job openings compared to 4 for ColdFusion. Granted, C# listed jobs
> for both web and windows development. I think 120 opening to 4 speaks
> volumes.
>
>
>
> I wonder how CF would do in the market if Adobe would give it away?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Ryan Everhart
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:20 PM
> To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] Recent ColdFusion New Updated
>
>
>
>
> Wow... I am not a fan of that article at all. I remember reading plenty of
> articles where CF was recommend over ASP and PHP as a language for
> beginners.
>
>
> On 10/27/06, Clement Cervenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Yesterday afternoon, while reading my SitePoint
> Tech Times #151 - New Browser Wars / State of
> ColdFusion, I throught that you will might find
> this article very interesting. Sorry, that the
> charts didn't copy-over. If asked, I will email
> this entire issue to you, just post email.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe Cervenka
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> The State of ColdFusion
>
> In issue 145 of the Tech Times, I offered some advice
> on which web technologies beginners should invest time
> in learning. Ben Forta, the Senior Technical
> Evangelist at Adobe, felt I misrepresented ColdFusion
> when I described it as "relatively stagnant." Having
> done some homework, I've now changed my thinking a
> little.
>
> First, here's Forta's objection:
>
> You are correct about the gentle learning curve, but
> can you clarify "relatively stagnant"? Just to be
> clear, the Webster definition of stagnant is "not
> advancing or developing". ColdFusion was first
> released in 1995, ColdFusion MX 7 was released in
> 2005, 7.0.1 later that same year, and 7.0.2 in June of
> 2006. In addition, the ColdFusion team is hard at work
> on the 8th major version of ColdFusion (currently
> codenamed "Scorpio"), to be released in 2007.
> Obviously, we are both advancing and developing
> ColdFusion, and so the term "stagnant" is utterly
> inappropriate. As such, I must request that you update
> and correct your statement.
>
> Forta goes on to point out that ColdFusion sits atop a
> Java foundation, and as such benefits from the full
> power and flexibility of that platform. My thinking
> here is that to take advantage of the Java platform
> beyond what ColdFusion exposes directly, you need to
> learn Java, which makes it a moot point in a
> discussion of what a beginner should learn first.
>
> Getting back to Forta's main point, there is, of
> course, no arguing with semantics. If the measure of
> health for a server-side platform is the frequency of
> releases, then ColdFusion has life in it yet. But even
> when considering this meaningless metric, compared to
> the release schedules of competing platforms like Ruby
> on Rails, PHP, or the dazzling array of Java web
> application frameworks, ColdFusion comes off looking,
> well, "relatively stagnant."
>
> How else can we measure the health of a platform?
> Well, one way is to look at book sales (something we
> do at lot at SitePoint). O'Reilly showed the results
> of the past three years of book sales at OSCON 2006.
> ColdFusion didn't even make the graph, but when asked,
> Tim O'Reilly replied: "ColdFusion would be showing as
> a flatline at the bottom if we were to graph it." Of
> course, a platform might not need books if it were
> especially well-documented, and perhaps that's the
> case with ColdFusion. Or perhaps it's just that
> ColdFusion isn't evolving rapidly enough for people to
> need new books written about it.
>
> Perhaps the way to measure a platform's health is to
> look at the job market surrounding it. I've seen a
> smattering of reports that the ColdFusion job market
> has perked up recently, so let's take a look. When
> measured against Ruby jobs, ColdFusion looks like a
> solid enough choice for now.
>
> Note that the numbers for "ColdFusion" and for "Cold
> Fusion" are roughly equal, so you can effectively
> double the ColdFusion numbers if you don't mind
> working for a company that can't spell.
>
> When you throw in other more established platforms
> like PHP and ASP.NET, it's clear that ColdFusion isn't
> the best choice if you're playing the numbers for a
> new career.
>
> Even if you double up the ColdFusion line on this
> graph, it's still only about 2/3 the size of the PHP
> job market, while ASP.NET and Java (not shown because
> it overwhelms the others) are even better choices.
>
> But no, I wasn't talking about any of these forms of
> stangancy. Rather, my description of ColdFusion was
> based on an impression that the platform's development
> had slowed to the point that it was unable to respond
> to the changing needs of real-world web developers in
> the same way as its aforementioned competitors. Even
> in major releases like ColdFusion MX 7, changes to the
> platform seemed to consist mainly of tacked-on
> features of interest to a small minority of developers
> (e.g. integrated reporting) or tie-ins with
> Macromedia's (now Adobe's) other properties (e.g.
> Flex).
>
> Based on Forta's message, however, I thought it best
> to revisit that premise. I perused a number of
> ColdFusion blogs, read a ColdFusion developer journal,
> and spoke with some active members of the ColdFusion
> community. And I have to say, on some points I was
> pleasantly surprised.
>
> One trend I observed on ColdFusion-related blogs
> recently was a spate of ColdFusion 8 wishlists. Dave
> Carabetta published a particularly comprehensive one.
> These lists give a pretty good feel for where
> ColdFusion's power users hope the platform is headed.
> Certain items are worrisome:
>
> Eleven years in and ColdFusion doesn't have anything
> built-in to it to really work with images on any sort
> of useful level.
>
> ColdFusion needs a professional IDE. I have been
> working with Flex 2 lately, and it's downright
> appalling to see the level of professional polish on
> the Flex Builder IDE versus the CFEclipse IDE.
>
> Something that's not on these lists that I expected to
> see, however, is a more powerful application
> framework. This seems to be one area where the
> ColdFusion community has really taken charge: Fusebox,
> Model-Glue, Reactor, ColdSpring, Unity, and many other
> projects exist as the foundation for different
> approaches to building ColdFusion applications.
>
> Next I sat down with the Summer 2006 edition of Fusion
> Authority, a free copy of which serendipitously landed
> on my desk a few weeks ago. First, let me say that
> this is a top notch publication, with just the right
> mixture of big names and enthusiastic upstarts writing
> timely and practical articles.
>
> Refreshing my knowledge of ColdFusion code through the
> pages of the journal, I gained a renewed appreciation
> for the "hide the hard stuff" approach that's
> exemplified by the platform. If you're the kind of
> person who just wants to get the job done without
> getting drawn into the technical details, ColdFusion
> may be uniquely suited to your style.
>
> An article by Kay Smoljak, who I met at Web Directions
> South last month, attracted my attention, however. In
> "An Honest Look at Integrated Reporting", she
> describes the problems she had making real-world use
> of one of the flagship new features in ColdFusion MX
> 7. The severity of the bugs she describes are frankly
> shocking, and although it sounds like Adobe has been
> responsive to her bug reports, correcting many of the
> issues in the recent 7.0.2 release, one has to wonder
> a) how Adobe could release a flagship new feature that
> was so fundamentally flawed, and b) how nobody but Kay
> Smoljak seems to have noticed.
>
> In my mind, this signals a disconnect between the core
> development of ColdFusion and the real-world needs of
> its user base. The reason there wasn't public outcry
> as a result of the bugs in the integrated reporting
> features of ColdFusion MX 7 is because few people
> bothered to use the feature. When Macromedia/Adobe
> spends its time building integrated reporting that
> nobody uses instead of fundamentally useful features
> like dynamic image generation, there is something very
> wrong.
>
> The good news is that Adobe has announced that
> ColdFusion 8 will have dynamic image generation built
> in. Nevertheless, I had to ask Kay Smoljak what she
> thought of all this.
>
> I was actually a ColdFusion developer long before I
> was anything else, and really my impression of
> ColdFusion as a whole is pretty positive. [...] Don't
> get me wrong - ColdFusion integrated reporting is a
> steaming pile of turds. But I'm still a fan of the
> platform. Perhaps they don't give the right impression
> to the wider community of developers, but there is a
> lot of stuff happening. [...]
>
> I have some ideas about the type of developer that is
> attracted to ColdFusion, which I think contributes to
> the "stagnant impression" - they tend to be "get the
> job done and move on to the next target" type people
> rather than coding enthusiasts - they're just not
> vocal like Ruby On Rails, PHP and .NET fanatics.
>
> ...which is all pretty reasonable, as far as it goes.
>
> The question I keep coming back to is this: what
> exactly are you paying for when you choose to develop
> for ColdFusion? Lest we forget, Adobe's ColdFusion
> server costs a pretty penny to license, and that's
> money that your employer won't be putting into server
> hardware, developer tools, or, ultimately, your
> pocket. Just what is it that you're getting in return?
> It isn't quicker bug fixes, it isn't a larger job
> market, it's not a richer feature set, and it's not
> rock-solid reliability. It might be timely support,
> but other platforms offer that too, and without the
> up-front costs.
>
> In the end, the only solid reason I know of for
> choosing ColdFusion today is if you simply prefer its
> way of doing things. But, when we compare ColdFusion
> to competing platforms, I do honestly believe that the
> core development of ColdFusion has been stagnant for
> some time. It may be that this is all about to change
> with the release of ColdFusion 8 next year and, thanks
> to Adobe Labs, we should be able to tell long before
> this new version hits the streets. But based on where
> the platform is today, I must stand firm in my
> recommendation that newcomers to web development look
> elsewhere, at least for now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reply to DFWCFUG:
> [email protected]
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
> List Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
> DFWCFUG Sponsors:
> www.HostMySite.com
> www.teksystems.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Everhart
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blogging @ http://ev.instantspot.com/blog/
> _______________________________________________
> Reply to DFWCFUG:
> [email protected]
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
> List Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
> DFWCFUG Sponsors:
> www.HostMySite.com
> www.teksystems.com/
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
