> But a lot of > people don't know enough about CFML to consider it a viable alternative > to JSP and / or they believe the FUD - Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt - > spread by CF's detractors... Well, if you ever used CF3.0, which had NO proper way to handle multithreaded session requests, and had a lot of ridiculous restrictions on the usage of tags, or the collosal POS that was CF4.0 (quite possibly the WORST application web server ever made - I still can't believe that piece of garbage made it to market), I can see how people don't exactly trust CF these days... Of course that was over 4 years ago... a lifetime in Internet terms. CF 3 did have threading issues - but was otherwise a HUGE leap foreward: intergrated Search engine, full mail support (albeit a bit broken), custom tags, etc. CF 4 also had problems of course and we might consider CF 4.5 the first "modern" version of CF. However it's riduculous to compare those versions to the modern versions: remembe what ELSE was available then? NOTHING was very good at the time (well, except for Perl, I suppose). WebPlus a poor CF clone, Java was so much in it's infancy you couldn't really build squat (except for memory-leak-ridden applets), ASP was promising but had some SEVERE problems of it's own. Compared to what was available at the time CF 3 and 4 were actually about evenly placed, I think. We built some damn fine applications on them (actually we built some damn fine applications on versions 1.5 and 2 as well). I agree that people seem to be carrying outdated impressions of CF - but why just CF? You rarely hear people complaining about ASP's threading model (which inversion 1.0 REALLY sucked) but I still hear people spouting off that CF isn't multi-threaded (it is, of course and has been for years) or that it can't handle any significant load (it's been able to since 4) or that it lacks some other basic neccesity that it's featured for years (like structured exception handling, recursion, custom functions, etc). I'm not sure why this is, but it definately is a problem. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to