RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
I was thinking - I have been focusing on Bluedragon quite a bit as of late, and is cfml the only language that can be used on .net *and* java? You can compile Java code against .NET using JUMP, although I don't know how well that actually works. You can also write Python and use that with .NET through Python for .NET, or Java through Jython. Those are two examples that come immediately to mind. I'm sure there are more. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
No disrespect, but this topic and the way it was presented is basically troll bait. Please move the speculative debate over to CF-OT or CF-Community. Thanks [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Although since the terms proprietary and standard are not, themselves defined in this context it's an interesting, but ultimately unwinnable argument.;^) The most appropriate definition of proprietary seems to be privately owned and run - which seems to apply clearly to Java.In other words Java is proprietary because Sun is the proprietor.Not of the language - Sun, IBM, Microsoft, etc all have Java implementations - but rather of the definition of the language. Standard is much more difficult to pin down: it's a complex word.Cases can be made that any programming language is a standard in that every programming language has certain base levels of quality and functionality (or standards).However ECMA Standard is simple - they define it for us: A Standard or a Technical Report is a formal document prepared by an Ecma Technical Committee and approved by the Ecma General Assembly. A majority of at least two-thirds of all the ordinary members is required for approval. In that sense there's no doubt that C# is an ECMA standard.However it still can be proprietary insofar as proprietary is also an implication of ownership.In this case I think the label proprietary would definitely fit any language with only one vendor even if that language could, in theory, be implemented by other vendors. I don't know of any C# vendor other than MS so I (and I'm sure many others) consider it a proprietary technology despite its status as an ECMA standard. Just within the definition of the words you can definitely be both proprietary and standard - in fact many things to which the term de facto standard applies will generally be both. This also leads to a discussion of Open as applying to standards.Neither Java or C# are Open Standards as commonly defined simply because one body may make changes to them.I personally don't think that anything can be a truly open standard - just more or less open.PHP is very open, Java is fairly open, C# is less open but still more open that CFML and so forth. In short I think that the terms themselves aren't clear and are used in cases like this more didactically than anything else. Jim Davis [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 21:42, Dick Applebaum wrote: the ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) is supported by several companies: Macromedia New Atlanta (BlueDragon) Ralio I was thinking - I have been focusing on Bluedragon quite a bit as of late, and is cfml the only language that can be used on .net *and* java? I cant think of another one. Seems like a pretty cool place to be. Hi Rob! What's up Dick - K asked me to ask you for Dixyland recommendations off list if you have any :) Don't know what happened to my response -- lost in the ether aren't we all -- here goes again: I've been playin' with BD J2eerunning entirely from CD-ROM/Desktop. BD is fast, small, easy install and you don't need to do anything special to make it run on CD -- just copy Burn. I have been lurking on your travels and hope to try it myself sometime soon. Quite a cool concept and much more portable than that corel thing... Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. - John Benfield - hehehe -- Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 23:09, Dave Watts wrote: I was thinking - I have been focusing on Bluedragon quite a bit as of late, and is cfml the only language that can be used on .net *and* java? You can compile Java code against .NET using JUMP, although I don't know how well that actually works. You can also write Python and use that with .NET through Python for .NET, or Java through Jython. Those are two examples that come immediately to mind. I'm sure there are more. Ahh yeah forgot about python... JUMP? googling... Is python and Jython the same syntax, etc? could you write one file and have it run the same in both environments? - kind of getting off topic (if there ever was one). Does it compile to native code (as much as C# and java are native anyway) or is it like BSF? - Thanks for the information Dave. (I still think its pretty cool that cfml runs in both settings) -- Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
I avoid the off topic part of your post and just correct you. C# is an ECMA standard that has been implemented by various groups including Microsoft, Corel (Rotor), Novell (Mono), and Gnu (Portable.NET). -Matt On Jun 10, 2004, at 2:41 AM, Jim Davis wrote: Although since the terms proprietary and standard are not, themselves defined in this context it's an interesting, but ultimately unwinnable argument. ;^) The most appropriate definition of proprietary seems to be privately owned and run - which seems to apply clearly to Java. In other words Java is proprietary because Sun is the proprietor. Not of the language - Sun, IBM, Microsoft, etc all have Java implementations - but rather of the definition of the language. Standard is much more difficult to pin down: it's a complex word. Cases can be made that any programming language is a standard in that every programming language has certain base levels of quality and functionality (or standards). However ECMA Standard is simple - they define it for us: A Standard or a Technical Report is a formal document prepared by an Ecma Technical Committee and approved by the Ecma General Assembly. A majority of at least two-thirds of all the ordinary members is required for approval. In that sense there's no doubt that C# is an ECMA standard. However it still can be proprietary insofar as proprietary is also an implication of ownership. In this case I think the label proprietary would definitely fit any language with only one vendor even if that language could, in theory, be implemented by other vendors. I don't know of any C# vendor other than MS so I (and I'm sure many others) consider it a proprietary technology despite its status as an ECMA standard. Just within the definition of the words you can definitely be both proprietary and standard - in fact many things to which the term de facto standard applies will generally be both. This also leads to a discussion of Open as applying to standards. Neither Java or C# are Open Standards as commonly defined simply because one body may make changes to them. I personally don't think that anything can be a truly open standard - just more or less open. PHP is very open, Java is fairly open, C# is less open but still more open that CFML and so forth. In short I think that the terms themselves aren't clear and are used in cases like this more didactically than anything else. Jim Davis [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Dave Watts wrote: *yawn*here we go again -- dancing in semantics land with Matt. Note my use of quotes (I guess not) -- in any event... The problem with your dancing lesson is that Matt is absolutely correct in his insistence on semantic accuracy in this case, because it matters. You're stepping on his toes! A guy can't make a facetious comment on this list anymore without the semantic police getting their toes crushed :) Well if the semantics matter who owns the patent and/or trademark for Java, C#??Cos you see, if someone owns a patent/trademark on something then that patent/trademark is the very definition of proprietary in the dictionary.It has little if anything to do with standards; real, imagined or de-facto. -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
I suggest spending some time with Google before making absurd positions. For example, the patents necessary to implement the standards ECMA-334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (CLI) are available from Microsoft RAND + Royalty Free. Which shouldn't be surprising since all standard organizations require RAND licenses to be available for patents covering their standards. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense to create a vendor neutral standard that was effectively controlled by a single vendor due to patents. -Matt On Jun 10, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Geoff Bowers wrote: Dave Watts wrote: *yawn* here we go again -- dancing in semantics land with Matt. Note my use of quotes (I guess not) -- in any event... The problem with your dancing lesson is that Matt is absolutely correct in his insistence on semantic accuracy in this case, because it matters. You're stepping on his toes! A guy can't make a facetious comment on this list anymore without the semantic police getting their toes crushed :) Well if the semantics matter who owns the patent and/or trademark for Java, C#?? Cos you see, if someone owns a patent/trademark on something then that patent/trademark is the very definition of proprietary in the dictionary. It has little if anything to do with standards; real, imagined or de-facto. -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Then in that case I would say that C# is also non-proprietary. Jim Davis _ From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 2:58 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued I avoid the off topic part of your post and just correct you. C# is an ECMA standard that has been implemented by various groups including Microsoft, Corel (Rotor), Novell (Mono), and Gnu (Portable.NET). -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
This topic has been moved to cf-community as the moderator requested. Please re-read the email as I am concerned over cf security, speed, the need for cf servers,etc... Any doc's url's etc... without chopping a newbie apart will be appreciated. Wayne _ From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued I suggest spending some time with Google before making absurd positions. For example, the patents necessary to implement the standards ECMA-334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (CLI) are available from Microsoft RAND + Royalty Free. Which shouldn't be surprising since all standard organizations require RAND licenses to be available for patents covering their standards. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense to create a vendor neutral standard that was effectively controlled by a single vendor due to patents. -Matt On Jun 10, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Geoff Bowers wrote: Dave Watts wrote: *yawn*here we go again -- dancing in semantics land with Matt. Note my use of quotes (I guess not) -- in any event... The problem with your dancing lesson is that Matt is absolutely correct in his insistence on semantic accuracy in this case, because it matters. You're stepping on his toes! A guy can't make a facetious comment on this list anymore without the semantic police getting their toes crushed :) Well if the semantics matter who owns the patent and/or trademark for Java, C#??Cos you see, if someone owns a patent/trademark on something then that patent/trademark is the very definition of proprietary in the dictionary.It has little if anything to do with standards; real, imagined or de-facto. -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Well if the semantics matter who owns the patent and/or trademark for Java, C#?? Cos you see, if someone owns a patent/trademark on something then that patent/trademark is the very definition of proprietary in the dictionary. It has little if anything to do with standards; real, imagined or de-facto. I doubt that anyone owns a patent on Java, as such. What is Java? It's a programming language, a virtual machine, a set of class libraries, etc. It's not simply one patentable item. The plain fact is, plenty of companies create JVMs and bytecode compilers, not just Sun. Again, if Sun disappeared tomorrow, Java would continue to be used as it is today. Perhaps future versions would fork, perhaps not. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Ahh yeah forgot about python... JUMP? googling... It's a .NET migration tool included with Visual Studio .NET 2003, if I recall correctly. Is python and Jython the same syntax, etc? could you write one file and have it run the same in both environments? - kind of getting off topic (if there ever was one). Does it compile to native code (as much as C# and java are native anyway) or is it like BSF? Honestly, I don't know enough about Jython to answer that. If I recall correctly, Jython simply compiles Python to Java bytecode, but I don't know if that's exactly correct, and I'm too lazy to check. My larger point was simply that there are probably plenty of things out there that can run with both platforms. (I still think its pretty cool that cfml runs in both settings) I do too! However, in the long run, I suspect it's going to be a lot of work for New Atlanta to keep two separate products going. After all, they really are two separate products, and all of the internals are certainly different, since one product uses the Java class libraries and the other uses the .NET Framework. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Actually, New Atlanta doesn't have two separately coded products, they have just one.They have the Java based CFML engine that runs on Java.Then they compile that version, along with some special J# wrappers for Java stuff not available in J#, to produce a .NET version. Both the Java and .NET versions are one code base at the core. This gives New Atlanta a huge advantage over Macromedia in that since MM's CF engine produces Java byte code directly it'd be nearly impossible for MM to port to .NET without re-writing.Remember that New Atlanta's engine is an interpreter and not a compiler. I believe, but an not certain, that MM is doing the same with the .NET version of Flex--recompiling the Java classes under J#. Best regards, Sam -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 1:40 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued (I still think its pretty cool that cfml runs in both settings) I do too! However, in the long run, I suspect it's going to be a lot of work for New Atlanta to keep two separate products going. After all, they really are two separate products, and all of the internals are certainly different, since one product uses the Java class libraries and the other uses the .NET Framework. Dave Watts [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
At 01:35 PM 6/10/2004, you wrote: Again, if Sun disappeared tomorrow, Java would continue to be used as it is today. Perhaps future versions would fork, perhaps not. It would be called the Microsoft .Java Framework. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 -- Alex Sherwood PHS Collection Agency THE COLLECTORS P:813-283-4579 F:301.664.6834 W: www.phs-net.com [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Honestly, I don't know enough about Jython to answer that. If I recall correctly, Jython simply compiles Python to Java bytecode, but I don't know if that's exactly correct, and I'm too lazy to check. My larger point was simply that there are probably plenty of things out there that can run with both platforms. Jython compiles Python to Java bytecode. Additionally, BSF interprets Python, so you can go either route. On Windows, BSF even supports JScript and VBScript, so there are two more languages that one can use with both Java and .NET. Of course, in all case the class libraries are different. I do too! However, in the long run, I suspect it's going to be a lot of work for New Atlanta to keep two separate products going. After all, they really are two separate products, and all of the internals are certainly different, since one product uses the Java class libraries and the other uses the .NET Framework. I think you have a misunderstanding here. BlueDragon and BlueDragon.NET are not two completely separate code bases. What they have is actually quite maintainable. However, I am really unsure of what details I can share, so I'll play it safe and share none. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
This gives New Atlanta a huge advantage over Macromedia in that since MM's CF engine produces Java byte code directly it'd be nearly impossible for MM to port to .NET without re-writing. Remember that New Atlanta's engine is an interpreter and not a compiler. I would like to make a clarification that I think is important when comparing CF and BD. The CF engine does use a compiler approach that produces Java byte code. BD however isn't strictly an interpreter. It certainly uses an interpretive approach, but like CF, all of the tags are Java classes created ahead of time. Thus, you could think of BD as an interpreter for basic logic, but the tags's logic is actually compiled. Anyway, the point I want to make is that comparing the two products from an approach point of view is more complicated than it first appears. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
I think you have a misunderstanding here. BlueDragon and BlueDragon.NET are not two completely separate code bases. What they have is actually quite maintainable. However, I am really unsure of what details I can share, so I'll play it safe and share none. I may well be incorrect about this (or anything else!). Sam Neff posted some relevant details. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
I'm not saying one is better than the other because of compiler vs interpreter, just that BD has an advantage over MM CF in this particular case because it uses an interpretive approach as you like to call it. I'm not quite sure how interpretive approach differs from being an interpreter.. the explanation I received is that BD produces a tree structure of all tags in memory and on each call iterates this tree structure to call the classes and methods corresponding with each tag. Sounds like an interpreter to me, but I don't actually have a CS degree so perhaps I'm missing some distinction. Also, being compiled doesn't necessarily mean faster either, 'cause most processing takes place in the code assiociated with the tags itself (written by MM and New Atlanta) as opposed to the code generated/interpreted by the CFML developer.From what I saw the BD interpreter was extremely fast, although I've never run any empirical speed comparisons. Of course, I don't see any way BD will ever have the Blackstone features already announced..notably the Flex integration (although I personally don't think this is a valuable feature), so we are likely to see framentation in the future and products can compete based on features and people will develop code that only runs on one flavor of CF, which is what I always saw as the problem with BD--it's always playing catch-up and any innovation it does just causes fragmentation. My $0.02. Sam -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:24 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued) This gives New Atlanta a huge advantage over Macromedia in that since MM's CF engine produces Java byte code directly it'd be nearly impossible for MM to port to .NET without re-writing.Remember that New Atlanta's engine is an interpreter and not a compiler. I would like to make a clarification that I think is important when comparing CF and BD. The CF engine does use a compiler approach that produces Java byte code. BD however isn't strictly an interpreter. It certainly uses an interpretive approach, but like CF, all of the tags are Java classes created ahead of time. Thus, you could think of BD as an interpreter for basic logic, but the tags's logic is actually compiled. Anyway, the point I want to make is that comparing the two products from an approach point of view is more complicated than it first appears. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
That's absolutely correct regarding the Java and .NET versions of BlueDragon. The vast majority of the source code (80-90%) is exactly the same across the two versions. There won't be any problem maintaining the two editions in the long term. Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com From: Samuel Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 2:23 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued Actually, New Atlanta doesn't have two separately coded products, they have just one.They have the Java based CFML engine that runs on Java. Then they compile that version, along with some special J# wrappers for Java stuff not available in J#, to produce a .NET version. Both the Java and .NET versions are one code base at the core. This gives New Atlanta a huge advantage over Macromedia in that since MM's CF engine produces Java byte code directly it'd be nearly impossible for MM to port to .NET without re-writing.Remember that New Atlanta's engine is an interpreter and not a compiler. I believe, but an not certain, that MM is doing the same with the .NET version of Flex--recompiling the Java classes under J#. Best regards, Sam -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 1:40 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued (I still think its pretty cool that cfml runs in both settings) I do too! However, in the long run, I suspect it's going to be a lot of work for New Atlanta to keep two separate products going. After all, they really are two separate products, and all of the internals are certainly different, since one product uses the Java class libraries and the other uses the .NET Framework. Dave Watts [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
I'm not quite sure how interpretive approach differs from being an interpreter.. the explanation I received is that BD produces a tree structure of all tags in memory and on each call iterates this tree structure to call the classes and methods corresponding with each tag. Sounds like an interpreter to me, but I don't actually have a CS degree so perhaps I'm missing some distinction. You are correct in your explanation. The distinction is that those classes and methods corresponding with each tag are already compiled instead of having to be interpreted themselves. An interpreter in the traditional sense would not use this hybrid approach. Also, being compiled doesn't necessarily mean faster either, 'cause most processing takes place in the code assiociated with the tags itself (written by MM and New Atlanta) as opposed to the code generated/interpreted by the CFML developer. From what I saw the BD interpreter was extremely fast, although I've never run any empirical speed comparisons. Without sharing actual benchmarks since we aren't allowed to per the license, CFMX is faster than BD at executing a single page request most of the time. CFMX may even be faster theoretically for many simultaneous requests. However, BD seems to scale much better and is able to serve more pages, faster when under heavy load. Of course, I don't see any way BD will ever have the Blackstone features already announced..notably the Flex integration (although I personally don't think this is a valuable feature), so we are likely to see framentation in the future and products can compete based on features and people will develop code that only runs on one flavor of CF, which is what I always saw as the problem with BD--it's always playing catch-up and any innovation it does just causes fragmentation. What I have seen in Blackstone --cfdocument and rich forms-- could be implemented in BD very quickly. As far as Flex integration, for the small number of CFML developers who actually care about that, the situation will be much the same way it is with Flash; integration will happen using web services. Of course, the future is hard to predict. I believe we as CFML developers should look forward to the day when Macromedia implements functionality in CF that is currently only found in BD. We will all instantly know if we are doomed to have a fragmented language or if Macromedia and New Atlanta can together serve their respective customers without negative impact on the community. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
Of course, I don't see any way CF will ever have the BlueDragon.NET features already announced...notably the ability to share Application/Session/Request scope variables with ASP.NET pages to create hybrid web applications, or to create CFXs in C# and Visual Basic.NET, or to invoke .NET objects using CFOBJECT (and I personally think those are extremely valuable features). Which is what I always saw as the problem with CF--it's always playing catch-up (such as promising source-less deployment and standard WAR/EAR support more than two years after BD delivered these features; and when are they ever going to implement CFIMAP and CFIMAGE?). My $0.02.;-) Vince From: Samuel Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 4:14 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued) snip Of course, I don't see any way BD will ever have the Blackstone features already announced..notably the Flex integration (although I personally don't think this is a valuable feature), so we are likely to see framentation in the future and products can compete based on features and people will develop code that only runs on one flavor of CF, which is what I always saw as the problem with BD--it's always playing catch-up and any innovation it does just causes fragmentation. My $0.02. Sam [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
Actually you can create CFX's in C# and Visual Basic. The only problem is that the very fist entry is written in C++ then you can hybrid a class written in Visual Basic or C# or even J#.. If you ever want an example look at the .Net example of creating a project with C#,Visual Basic etc. I know I did it and it works, but as I said the request call must be entered via a c++ entry point and then you can go anywhere from there... Regards Andrew Scott Technical Consultant NuSphere Pty Ltd Level 2/33 Bank Street South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205 Phone: 03 9686 0485-Fax: 03 9699 7976 _ From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 11 June 2004 8:46 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued) Of course, I don't see any way CF will ever have the BlueDragon.NET features already announced...notably the ability to share Application/Session/Request scope variables with ASP.NET pages to create hybrid web applications, or to create CFXs in C# and Visual Basic.NET, or to invoke .NET objects using CFOBJECT (and I personally think those are extremely valuable features). Which is what I always saw as the problem with CF--it's always playing catch-up (such as promising source-less deployment and standard WAR/EAR support more than two years after BD delivered these features; and when are they ever going to implement CFIMAP and CFIMAGE?). My $0.02.;-) Vince From: Samuel Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 4:14 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued) snip Of course, I don't see any way BD will ever have the Blackstone features already announced..notably the Flex integration (although I personally don't think this is a valuable feature), so we are likely to see framentation in the future and products can compete based on features and people will develop code that only runs on one flavor of CF, which is what I always saw as the problem with BD--it's always playing catch-up and any innovation it does just causes fragmentation. My $0.02. Sam _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Matt Liotta wrote: I suggest spending some time with Google before making absurd positions. For example, the patents necessary to implement the standards ECMA-334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (CLI) are available from Microsoft ...balh blah blah.. I think once again my point is one of semantics.. and the english language.My original remark was tongue-in-cheek, light hearted, etc. You chose to make a semantic issue out of it.I'm merely saying that the dictionary definition of proprietary is this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proprietary Clearly the developer community has a different spin on the definintion when attached to programming languages -- this is the beauty of the english language, it evolves. I don't disagree with you Matt -- you just annoy me.I just think you are absurdly pedantic -- almost as pedantic as myself ;) -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
Actually you can create CFX's in C# and Visual Basic. The only problem is that the very fist entry is written in C++ then you can hybrid a class written in Visual Basic or C# or even J#.. That isn't really writing a CFX in C#, VB, or J# since you are writing the CFX in C++ and simply making use of another language at an object level. BD.NET allows you to write the actual CFX in a .NET language. However, if you are looking to write CFX tags in a .NET language with CFMX, you can make use of Black Knight. Interestingly enough, Java CFXs can often be recompiled with J# and Black Knight with little to no changes. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
I think once again my point is one of semantics.. and the english language. My original remark was tongue-in-cheek, light hearted, etc. You chose to make a semantic issue out of it. I'm merely saying that the dictionary definition of proprietary is this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proprietary Maybe I am missing what you are referring to, but I found the below at the URL you supplied. pro·pri·e·tar·y P Pronunciation Key (pr -pr -t r ) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors as a group: had proprietary rights; behaved with a proprietary air in his friend's house. 2. Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital. 3. Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug. Is C# of, related to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors as a group? I don't see how. Is C# exclusively owned? Certainly not. Is C# owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent? Again no. See what I don't think you seem to understand is that Microsoft doesn't own C#; no one does. Microsoft does own a specific implementation of C# known as Visual C#, which btw is trademarked. So just to be clear, C# is not proprietary; it is a ECMA standard. Microsoft Visual C# is proprietary and is an implementation of an ECMA standard. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
There are additional benefits to Black Knight beyond that. Black Knight tags can be used with existing versions of ColdFusion (4.0 and later) - which means there is no need to change over to another application server.Additionally, while BlueDragon offers this capability it does not offer it in the a mix and match way.BlueDragon is either operating in .NET mode or Java mode, you cannot use a .NET CFX with BlueDragon JX. rish -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:27 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued) Actually you can create CFX's in C# and Visual Basic. The only problem is that the very fist entry is written in C++ then you can hybrid a class written in Visual Basic or C# or even J#.. That isn't really writing a CFX in C#, VB, or J# since you are writing the CFX in C++ and simply making use of another language at an object level. BD.NET allows you to write the actual CFX in a .NET language. However, if you are looking to write CFX tags in a .NET language with CFMX, you can make use of Black Knight. Interestingly enough, Java CFXs can often be recompiled with J# and Black Knight with little to no changes. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
Well unless someone converts the functions over to the other languages you are stuck with an entry to C++. You don't need Black Night for .Net, I finally worked out how to write a com object and incorporate this into cf without the need of making changes to the compiled code. Making Black Night redundant, or not worth the money you payed for it anyway. I have written a com object in C#,C++,Visual Basic, J# and java and all work without the use of Black Night. You can still code a CFX in any language you choose, just that the entry point will be C++ as stated. And again Matt, you said you can't I say you can. Who ever wrote Black Night must not have been writing their com objects properly, every com object I have created works without the use of Black Night:-) Now what was your point again? Regards Andrew Scott Technical Consultant NuSphere Pty Ltd Level 2/33 Bank Street South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205 Phone: 03 9686 0485-Fax: 03 9699 7976 _ From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 11 June 2004 9:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued) Actually you can create CFX's in C# and Visual Basic. The only problem is that the very fist entry is written in C++ then you can hybrid a class written in Visual Basic or C# or even J#.. That isn't really writing a CFX in C#, VB, or J# since you are writing the CFX in C++ and simply making use of another language at an object level. BD.NET allows you to write the actual CFX in a .NET language. However, if you are looking to write CFX tags in a .NET language with CFMX, you can make use of Black Knight. Interestingly enough, Java CFXs can often be recompiled with J# and Black Knight with little to no changes. -Matt _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
Actually Black Knight (as opposed to Black Night) does more than simply allow a developer to write CFXs in .NET - which is *not* done via COM mind you.Black Knight is actually a whole .NET runtime host for ColdFusion not merely a stub such as you've described. Black Knight provides for public and private assembly loading and, more importantly, unloading.This allows for CFX assemblies to be flushed during development without having to restart the ColdFusion Server.Flushing classes is a distinct problem with Java CFXs currently. Additionally Black Knight provides .NET APIs for creating, debugging and porting CFXs. Before you snap off such a critical and disparaging comment like that you really should follow up with a little fact checking. You done something rather impressive but it really isn't packaged for wide reuse.You are presuming that everyone knows the same things that you do or has the time to figure out all the other things that Black Knight does - above and beyond what you've done.Black Knight's goal was an easy to use toolset not a method.Anyone can read about the techniques for doing what you've done and the basics of the Black Knight product - not everyone has the time to do or the inclination.Sometimes they just need to focus on building their application rather brewing an in-house kit that they will then have to support in addition to the application. rish -Original Message- From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 7:12 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued) Well unless someone converts the functions over to the other languages you are stuck with an entry to C++. You don't need Black Night for .Net, I finally worked out how to write a com object and incorporate this into cf without the need of making changes to the compiled code. Making Black Night redundant, or not worth the money you payed for it anyway. I have written a com object in C#,C++,Visual Basic, J# and java and all work without the use of Black Night. You can still code a CFX in any language you choose, just that the entry point will be C++ as stated. And again Matt, you said you can't I say you can. Who ever wrote Black Night must not have been writing their com objects properly, every com object I have created works without the use of Black Night:-) Now what was your point again? Regards Andrew Scott Technical Consultant NuSphere Pty Ltd Level 2/33 Bank Street South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205 Phone: 03 9686 0485-Fax: 03 9699 7976 _ From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 11 June 2004 9:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued) Actually you can create CFX's in C# and Visual Basic. The only problem is that the very fist entry is written in C++ then you can hybrid a class written in Visual Basic or C# or even J#.. That isn't really writing a CFX in C#, VB, or J# since you are writing the CFX in C++ and simply making use of another language at an object level. BD.NET allows you to write the actual CFX in a .NET language. However, if you are looking to write CFX tags in a .NET language with CFMX, you can make use of Black Knight. Interestingly enough, Java CFXs can often be recompiled with J# and Black Knight with little to no changes. -Matt _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: comparing CF and BD (was Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!)
Then I stand corrected:-) Black Knight does do more than I thought.. However when writing com objects, it isn't brain science and the help for it can be found in a snap. But yeah, the pain of the caching of the com object, and java code can be a big pain in the butt!! Regards Andrew Scott Technical Consultant NuSphere Pty Ltd Level 2/33 Bank Street South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205 Phone: 03 9686 0485-Fax: 03 9699 7976 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Of course you're right about C# Matt.. my mistake :) Matt Liotta wrote: Is C# of, related to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors as a group? I don't see how. Is C# exclusively owned? Certainly not. Is C# owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent? Again no. See what I don't think you seem to understand is that Microsoft doesn't own C#; no one does. Microsoft does own a specific implementation of C# known as Visual C#, which btw is trademarked. Is Java of, related to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors as a group? I don't see how not. Is Java exclusively owned? Certainly yes. Is Java owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent? Again yes. See what I don't think you seem to understand is that Sun owns Java; no one else. (it's like kids in the playground, no?) So just to be clear, C# is not proprietary; it is a ECMA standard. Microsoft Visual C# is proprietary and is an implementation of an ECMA standard. Do you really believe that C# would be anything without Microsoft??And would Microsoft's abandonment of C# in favour of a new language not see the decline of C# and the emergence of that new language?? (As we've seen with the emergence of C#) And if C# were abandoned on Windows by Microsoft, that would likely spell the immediate decline and eventual demise of the language on that platform.So the fact that the language is a standard and not owned by anyone in the sense of the law, it still is nevertheless owned by Microsoft in every other sense. Seems to me like Java /feels/ less proprietary than C#.But what would I know, eh. Again what I tried to say in a jovial response originally with regard to *ColdFusion* is that being proprietary has little bearing on the success or failure of a programming language.Certainly we've been given ample examples over the last decade. -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Well : ) Now that I have your attention... I am wondering about what will take place with all the current cf websites if this ever happened? Actually I want to learn coldfusion but have considered the fact of cf being proprietary and it diing out. Is there any news about the W3 ever making .cfm,etc... a standand? CF seems as though it is on the rise and also becoming really packed with features, better speed, etc... What about security issues CF has had in the past? Not that Microsoft, Linux,other scripting languages, etc.. has ever not had security issues also. Anyway sorry for the potential scare, but I am sure most have given thisthought before and have some input on the topic. Wayne [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Well : ) Now that I have your attention... I am wondering about what will take place with all the current cf websites if this ever happened? Actually I want to learn coldfusion but have considered the fact of cf being proprietary and it diing out. Is there any news about the W3 ever making .cfm,etc... a standand? CF seems as though it is on the rise and also becoming really packed with features, better speed, etc... What about security issues CF has had in the past? Not that Microsoft, Linux,other scripting languages, etc.. has ever not had security issues also. Anyway sorry for the potential scare, but I am sure most have given thisthought before and have some input on the topic. Wayne [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Ok, hypothetically if that happened.I don't think anything would happen to the sites that already exist.It's not like they'd stop working.On the other hand, Macromedia isn't the only company making a CFML parser now either.BlueDragon makes a very good CFML parser also. I'd say that the situation is pretty similar to ASP or Java since neither of these are open.PHP is community driven so that would be an exception to this scenario. -- Marlon Moyer, Sr. Internet Developer American Contractors Insurance Group phone: 972.687.9445 fax: 972.687.0607 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.acig.com -Original Message- From: Wayne Burlingame [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:04 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued Well : ) Now that I have your attention... I am wondering about what will take place with all the current cf websites if this ever happened? Actually I want to learn coldfusion but have considered the fact of cf being proprietary and it diing out. Is there any news about the W3 ever making .cfm,etc... a standand? CF seems as though it is on the rise and also becoming really packed with features, better speed, etc... What about security issues CF has had in the past? Not that Microsoft, Linux,other scripting languages, etc.. has ever not had security issues also. Anyway sorry for the potential scare, but I am sure most have given this thought before and have some input on the topic. Wayne [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Well the ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) is supported by several companies: Macromedia New Atlanta (BlueDragon) Ralio You can google for these! The fact that several vendors offer competing products suggests that the language is not proprietary, popular and that it likely will survive if any of the vendors cease to sell their implementations. HTH Dick On Jun 9, 2004, at 8:03 PM, Wayne Burlingame wrote: Well : ) Now that I have your attention... I am wondering about what will take place with all the current cf websites if this ever happened? Actually I want to learn coldfusion but have considered the fact of cf being proprietary and it diing out. Is there any news about the W3 ever making .cfm,etc... a standand? CF seems as though it is on the rise and also becoming really packed with features, better speed, etc... What about security issues CF has had in the past? Not that Microsoft, Linux,other scripting languages, etc.. has ever not had security issues also. Anyway sorry for the potential scare, but I am sure most have given this thought before and have some input on the topic. Wayne [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Wayne Burlingame wrote: Now that I have your attention... I am wondering about what will take place with all the current cf websites if this ever happened? Actually I want to learn coldfusion but have considered the fact of cf being proprietary and it diing out. Is there any news about the W3 ever making .cfm,etc... a standand? CF seems as though it is on the rise and also becoming really packed with features, better speed, etc... What about security issues CF has had in the past? Not that Microsoft, Linux,other scripting languages, etc.. has ever not had security issues also. Anyway sorry for the potential scare, but I am sure most have given thisthought before and have some input on the topic. No you're absolutely right.And considering that Java, C#, ASP.NET are ALL proprietary languages there is not much hope for anyone but PHP developers. Oh the humanity -- think of the children! Given these statistics I think I'll stay with CF for the time being: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/08/30/php_growing_surprisingly_strongly_on_windows.html -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
At 08:37 PM 6/9/04, you wrote: Wayne Burlingame wrote: Now that I have your attention... snip thisthought before and have some input on the topic. No you're absolutely right.And considering that Java, C#, ASP.NET are ALL proprietary languages there is not much hope for anyone but PHP developers. Yeah but I'll pay $1300 for a cfserver... and make it back 100 fold in faster development time ;-) [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 20:28, Dick Applebaum wrote: Well the ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) is supported by several companies: Macromedia New Atlanta (BlueDragon) Ralio I was thinking - I have been focusing on Bluedragon quite a bit as of late, and is cfml the only language that can be used on .net *and* java? I cant think of another one. Seems like a pretty cool place to be. -- Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
On Jun 9, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Rob wrote: On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 20:28, Dick Applebaum wrote: Well the ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) is supported by several companies: Macromedia New Atlanta (BlueDragon) Ralio I was thinking - I have been focusing on Bluedragon quite a bit as of late, and is cfml the only language that can be used on .net *and* java? I cant think of another one. Seems like a pretty cool place to be. -- Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
No you're absolutely right. And considering that Java, C#, ASP.NET are ALL proprietary languages there is not much hope for anyone but PHP developers. The above statement is incorrect, C# is an ECMA standard and Java is a de facto standard through the JCP. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
On Jun 9, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Rob wrote: On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 20:28, Dick Applebaum wrote: Well the ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) is supported by several companies: Macromedia New Atlanta (BlueDragon) Ralio I was thinking - I have been focusing on Bluedragon quite a bit as of late, and is cfml the only language that can be used on .net *and* java? I cant think of another one. Seems like a pretty cool place to be. -- Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Rob! Don't know what happened to my response -- lost in the ether -- here goes again: I've been playin' with BD J2eerunning entirely from CD-ROM/Desktop. BD is fast, small, easy install and you don't need to do anything special to make it run on CD -- just copy Burn. Nice! Dick Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. - John Benfield - [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
Matt Liotta wrote: No you're absolutely right.And considering that Java, C#, ASP.NET are ALL proprietary languages there is not much hope for anyone but PHP developers. The above statement is incorrect, C# is an ECMA standard and Java is a de facto standard through the JCP. *yawn*here we go again -- dancing in semantics land with Matt.Note my use of quotes (I guess not) -- in any event... If Sun abandoned Java or Microsoft abandoned c# what would happen to the language??There is no formal evolution of either language at this time except through the say-so of its corporate sponsor.The presence of a standard (even defacto ones ;) does not constitute an absence of proprietary'ness. -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!
*yawn*here we go again -- dancing in semantics land with Matt. Note my use of quotes (I guess not) -- in any event... The problem with your dancing lesson is that Matt is absolutely correct in his insistence on semantic accuracy in this case, because it matters. You're stepping on his toes! If Sun abandoned Java or Microsoft abandoned c# what would happen to the language??There is no formal evolution of either language at this time except through the say-so of its corporate sponsor. The presence of a standard (even defacto ones ;) does not constitute an absence of proprietary'ness. If Sun disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, Java would continue. There are simply too many people invested in its existence, such as a li'l company called International Business Machines, or something like that. The only difference is that Java would no longer be controlled by Sun. I don't know who would control it, but that's irrelevant - it would likely remain one of the leading web application development environments. C# is a little different, because it's comparatively new. However, as time passes, I suspect you'll see similar investments in C# and the .NET Framework, to the degree that the same situation would exist as with Java. Comparing Java with PHP is absurd - there's no corporate buy-in for PHP, unlike Java. In my own experience at least, PHP appears to be primarily used by freelancers and people working on small sites on their own. I wouldn't be surprised if for every PHP developer doing mainstream corporate/enterprise work, there were 100 Java web app developers. I know there are exceptions - no matter what language you pick, you can find some big project that uses it - but those are the exceptions, not the rule. If I've learned nothing else from the Internet, it's that standards do matter with technology adoption. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
