On 6/2/05, Bryan Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For most sites, if the PHP site takes twice or three times as long as the > same site being done in CF, then whatever you have in the free software, > you've more than spent on programmers wages. So which site is cheaper again? > > > > larry
The "programmers wages" argument begins to collapse *very* quickly as you scale up/out. With *any* licensed software, your licensing costs are at least linearly related to your need to scale; for free open source software, the scaling price is zero. This isn't an issue for a small site, but for a large site the licensing costs can easily outstrip the development costs. For a moderate volume site with 2 dualproc web servers plus a dualproc db server, CF/MS-SQL costs $15k(3 [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2procs of [EMAIL PROTECTED]), LAMP costs $0. In many cases, the project may be delivered in LAMP for less than the license cost of CF/MS-SQL. And for very small sites, let's say a budget of <$10k, the licensing costs can eat up so much of the budget that there's no money left for building the site itself. The original question was about CF/MS-SQL vs LAMP. Software costs of CF/MS-SQL at a minimum are around $7k (Win2003 $800 + CF $1200 + MS-SQL $5,000) while LAMP costs $0. In many cases, LAMP could conceivably deliver the project for the cost of the licenses for CF/MS-SQL. To be fair though, the driver in both of these cases is really MS-SQL (and the companion Windows license). I think it's much easier to justify CF (for the time savings) *especially* if you need on of it's core differentiating features (e.g reporting, flashpaper, event gateways, java integration, flash integration). Just as PHP might be a time savings if you're delivering an application that can leverage existing PHP functionality, especially one of the portals or CMS platforms to solve your problem. I think the main advantage of CF over PHP/Perl/Python is the ability to leverage Java and to scale up into and integrate with J2EE containers and applications, but that's just me :) > Amen Larry!!....I don't know why this concept is so hard for some people to > "get". I think the main reason the "concept is so hard to get" is that there's no real proof demonstrating CF is faster to develop in than PHP (or .NET or Perl or Java, etc). There are plenty of anecdotal stories -- but for every positive anecdote you can show, there's a negative one someone else can throw out. -- John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint (blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com (email) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:208490 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
