I think CF on a non-Windows platform is more likely to happen that Mono on a non-Windows platform. If I had to work in a Unix environment, and .NET was my choice, I'd sooner take the real thing over the open-source option (but that's just me personally). From an enterprise perspective, I'd want the application server to be fully supported by the vendor - I'd rather bring them in to fix any problems on a configuration they support. Yeah, the option is there, but there are enough people out there that are skittish about open source (right or wrong) to not make Mono a viable option.
Part of the problem is that the price of the CF server is associated with perceived value. If they give it away for free or a low price, it may be deemed a product of poor quality for the enterprise. If they price it as an enterprise-level product, it's going to scare away people who could potentially use it for smaller-scale projects. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phillip Holmes Sent: Sun 11/5/2006 8:05 PM To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] Why Cold Fusion vs Java? vs PHP? vs .ASP? etc. On 11/5/06, Eric Knipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To change the tack a little bit. I agree that its very possible to make > poorly performing CF websites. Maybe this is harder to do in .NET (more > idiot proof?). .NET is a fully blown OO language.. its big boy stuff compared to a kinda (borderline) OO CF. Nothing about .NET should be associated with idiots. You need to understand OO to effectively use it. You can shoot yourself in the foot with it, but since the langauge is precompiled, you're warned syntax issues by an increbibly useful and feature rich Visual Studio IDE. Not to mention the fact that you can easily pop out a variety of application types (like windows aps) after you get the hang of it. Yeah.. the presentation, business logic and pageload logic is very nice and baked in. You can take it further by extending the basepage and splitting your BL / DL, etc and so on. *I did NOT EVER say CF couldn't scale if the application is written well, etc.. What I said was is that its gonna cost you twice as much hardware and lots of cash towards licensing. Sad but very true. Imagine 50 servers and keeping current on CF vs. .NET (free).. and there it is. If you're running CF on doze anyway, it a no brainer. Even if you're getting an upgrade price on your licenses, you're still looking at 150K. We can get into permutations of running CF on **ix, but then you have mono to approach that scenario (which is brutally fast). Bottom line, CF is what it is. It is "middleware for your middleware". If were talking about PHP or JSP / Java,yeah.. dev times with CF blow those technologies away. .NET 2.0 has bridge the CF RAD gap. So, really..why isn't adobe seeing these same trends and lowering the price to increase market penetration? You got me! --Phillip _______________________________________________ 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/
