Atlanta have always said that they are going after a slightly
different audience to Macromedia and therefore the features they add
for their customer base are likely to be slightly different to those
added by Macromedia for their customer base. Tim (Buntel) has
effectively said the same thing: Macromedia add what their customers
ask for. If both sets of customers ask for the same thing, you can
expect to see it implemented in both products - if they ask for
different things then you will naturally get some level of
incompatibility.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:36:06 -0400, Vince Bonfanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm...the answer to that is unclear, and depends on your perspective and
> what features you need most. If you rely heavily on Flash integration, then
> my guess is the ColdFusion will always be a better choice than BlueDragon.
> On the other hand, if you're looking for ASP.NET integration (for example),
> then BlueDragon is the obvious (only) choice.
>
> As for "lagging big time in the compatibility dept", I'll only point out the
> Blackstone is finally delivering in 2005 features that were pioneered by
> BlueDragon and have been in use by our customers since 2002 (standard J2EE
> WAR/EAR deployment, precompiled CFML templates for source-less deployment,
> CFIMAGE tag, etc.). Other more recent features, such as CFC serialization,
> are supported by BlueDragon 6.1 now, but won't be in Blackstone until 2005.
>
> So, again, the question of who is leading and who is lagging isn't as
> clear-cut as you might think. The feature sets of ColdFusion and BlueDragon
> will never be exactly the same, so the choice will come down to: which
> features do you need the most? Repeat slowly: choice is good...choice is
> good...choice is good...
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
