Nail. Head. Whack. Choosing a language is rarely done in a vacuum. There is no "best", and "better" is only able to be decided based on what external factors there are.
CF is good at RAD. But a project done RAD is rarely something you want to support and build on top of for the next five or ten years. The more maintainable and extensible the coding, the further from RAD the development process is. For instance, a good reason to move to OO and use UML for planning it is to improve the maintainability, modularity, and extensibility of an application. But to do extensive UML design is anti-RAD. So the speed of CF in that case becomes less of an issue. More important to an organization is their existing infrastructure and capacity. A company that is already invested in .NET/SQLServer has not only the platform but also staff who know how that works for both server administration as well as application code maintenance. So bidding them a job on CF would be silly. A CF app may even integrate fine using high-level communication structures like webservices, but the maintenance and administration of another server product and codebase is something a company needs to weigh. There's also the question of application development vs solutions implementation. CF is a really easy language to develop for, but if someone's looking to just solve a problem with existing products, there's a LOT more ASP/.NET and PHP products out there from little widgets all the way to full systems. A few notable CF developers have been making a dent in that disparity but there are some really amazing solutions, tools and widgets in other languages that are really slick and super easy to implement without requiring any coding knowledge. I don't think anyone here is going to say that CF is bad. But it's not always the right choice depending on the needs. Even an organization choosing between CF and Java, which offers the obvious case for both with CF on top of Java, still has to take into account the staff capacity to maintain multiple app codebases. On 1/24/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cost ensures that there is no un-biased way to compare these products. Is > development time faster in CF, almost always, does the performance hits > incurred by a script language make it that much less attractive, no. > > When ever we had simple content management websites, we had a fairly simple > CF system that I wrote we could plug in, add pages via the DB, and it would > work fairly well. It was a quick and inexpensive way to deal with those > customers. > > When we had a customer that need serious integration into backend systems, > and integration with multiple data sources, running on multiple server, > sometimes at multiple locations, CF lost. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:194116 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
