> It has no UI capabilities of it's own, so it's always going to be the
> back
> end to something else. That alone is enough to make it a poor choice
> for
> desktop apps.
>
Neither does Java!
> The 84mb runtime engine doesn't help either.
>
BD has a 10 MB
> And most of all, even if it was technically possible to make desktop
> apps,
> that certainly is not the main area where CF will be used and thus
> pricing
> is much more likely to remain at current levels geared towards server
> deployment. There is coral which is geared toward desktop apps (still
> pointless in my opinion) and a free version of BlueDragon which could
> be
> used for the purpose.
>
> So are you playing devil's advocate or do you really believe CF would
> be
> good to use for desktop apps?? :-)
>
No, I am serious ... Dave Watts pointed out that "If all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail"
Well, I have lots of nails!
Dick
> Sam
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Blog http://www.rewindlife.com
> TeamMM http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
> ----------------------------------------
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:02 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: Blackstone @ CF-FUN '04
> >
> > But Sam,
> >
> > The pricing is based on a distro modlel of thousands (or hundreds of
> > thousands).
> >
> > If you have a pricing based on hundreds of millions of
> > desktops, that's
> > quite another thing.
> >
> > What it boils down to is that CFMX is becoming something
> > analogous to a
> > UCSD p-code compiler/interpreter -- that was used to create the
> > second-generation of microcomputer apps (and much of the original
> Mac
> > GUI.
> >
> > CFML is easier to learn/write/maintain apps than Pascal, Java, APL,
> > JSP, PHP, Perl C,.....
> >
> > why not use it?
> >
> > Dick
> >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
