You can develop .NET in many languages, I do not think there is any distinction vetween using VB.NET are reall programmers and J#.NET are not
-----Original Message----- From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 September 2006 11:52 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CF vs. .NET presentations? If only it were that easy :-) Sure you are using .NET under the hood but I don't think you can label yourself a .NET programmer any more than we can call ourselves Java programmers by only using ColdFusion syntax etc. "This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Gateway House, 28 The Quadrant, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DN, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business, Registered in England, Number 678540. It contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender or call our switchboard on +44 (0) 20 89107910. The opinions expressed within this communication are not necessarily those expressed by Reed Exhibitions." Visit our website at http://www.reedexpo.com -----Original Message----- From: Snake To: CF-Talk Sent: Sat Sep 30 11:30:42 2006 Subject: RE: CF vs. .NET presentations? Personally I just use BlueDragon, which means I can call myself a .NET developer without having to learn a new language. -- Snake -----Original Message----- From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 September 2006 08:44 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CF vs. .NET presentations? Ultimately we can all chime in with our experiences with .NET (some just with an anti-MS stance whom have had no experience with it) and it could go on indefinitely....:-) let's not... I have never seen it as a .NET v ColdFusion / Java thing as to be honest we use whatever is best fit for that current problem. We are, at present using an ASP/.NET CMS system with ColdFusion and Java quite happily. Whenever we have done work in .NET I have found it painful to see just how much code it takes to do what I can do in ColdFusion with 2-3 lines - we are spoiled as ColdFusion developers and we are paying for this ease of use - this is good in my opinion, I have no problem paying for the ingenuity of the Adobe ColdFusion engineers... Keep up the good work. "This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Gateway House, 28 The Quadrant, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DN, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business, Registered in England, Number 678540. It contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender or call our switchboard on +44 (0) 20 89107910. The opinions expressed within this communication are not necessarily those expressed by Reed Exhibitions." Visit our website at http://www.reedexpo.com -----Original Message----- From: John C. Bland II To: CF-Talk Sent: Sat Sep 30 07:49:01 2006 Subject: Re: CF vs. .NET presentations? I def' agree that learning .NET is not an easy task. If you know JS, Actionscript, Java, etc (an ECMA language) picking up C# won't be too difficult. Learning all of the libraries in .NET is simply an astounding task but once you know ASP.NET you're golden for all things ASP.NET. CF developers can get by without Java. I've not had to use it but maybe 5 times in about 4 years and some of those were repeat instances. :-) So, you are right. They, CF developers, get by without extending CF. I'm sure if they didn't have to learn a completely different language they would def' use some of the more advanced features which Java allows. No, you are absoutely right about the product demos. I thought about that but with limited knowledge I did a few of the things he did in 20 minutes when I was learning ASP.NET (namely the grid with the updates, paging, sorting, and a couple other things). No sweat on the preso. I know it can take work to get one together. We have an authentication framework/setup as well so I def' know what you mean. It is common to build things once so you can use it over and over. Yes, with the security you may need to go custom. Going custom is much easier though, if you know those libraries/classes. A few good one's are already baked in though. If not, the community most likely have already built it (which could be another argument; lol). ASP.NET is like Flex. You can do as little or as much as you want with the high level stuff. You can get granular with the C# and extend the current code to make it do what you want. The custom controls are pretty amazing, in terms of simplicity. Yeah, I've had to use onRequestStart previously (due to the Remoting issue). We use .NET for WS so never tried it with CF but it makes since that if it is broken for Remoting it is for WS too. We use onRequestStart for authentication but cflogin definitely isn't an option simply due to the redirect issue and the cookies not saving. I hate that. Good to know it is easy to secure the WS. CF has much to be desired in way of Application.cfc. 7 is a great move in that direction. No doubt views can be arduous to get right and the core code may need to be adjusted. For instance, .NET CF may not need to use some heavy lifting code since the app is most likely a very scaled down version. If done right, you can package your files separate (dll's) and only include them as needed. Understandably you can't run .NET CF on a wide array of phones. As said, the market isn't there for mass usage but there are a great number of people on Windows Mobile so there is a large market. I don't know for sure but I'd say Java has the mobile on lock for right now with Flash Lite making good ground. Yeah, most developers don't need to buy CF. It is the small shops that are considering CF but choose otherwise because they have a dedicated box and don't want to pony up for a license. Coo on the respect statement. I appreciate your responses/time. We are pretty much working with the same mindset here, with some differences based on experience/history. On 9/29/06, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What I mean by integrate is more-so an extending. Without knowing > > Java, can you handle that with ease (being the key part)? Also, can > > a non-advanced user do it? (another key part) > > No, probably not. However, learning CF and Java seems to be about the > same amount of work as learning .NET. In addition, most CF programmers > can get by without the complexity of either Java or .NET. > > > None of that stuff was out of the ordinary and yes, IIS 7 isn't out > > yet. I don't think I made mention of it being out of the ordinary > > either. Doing all of it in 2 hours with talking, etc included? CF > > out of the box can't do it. > > The world of product demos is a lot like Quake Done Quick > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_done_Quick). You can do a hell of > a lot in two hours, with enough prior preparation. > > > I'd be highly interested in seeing you do this. We can setup a > > Breezo and get you rockin' for the world to see. Just let me know > > when you want to make it happen and we can do so. > > If/once you do it, I will sing your praises, as I previously said I > > would. > > Not to be indelicate, but that would be work, and for that I would > require payment. This is exactly why companies like Adobe and > Microsoft have product evangelists, who pretty much do that sort of > thing for a living. > > > Tracking a session variable isn't all that took place. There was > > roles based authentication, etc which isn't done with the snap of a > > finger in CF. > > No, it probably wouldn't be done with the snap of a finger, I agree. > But it wouldn't be that hard, either, and once you'd done it you > wouldn't need to rethink it the next time you were faced with the same > problem. For example, here at Fig Leaf we've used the same > authentication/authorization functionality in many custom > applications, in a format that's modular enough to allow very easy > reuse within other applications. And, if you're talking about the > roles-based authentication functionality described here: > > http://www.sitepoint.com/article/asp-net-2-security > > then it's worth pointing out that if you want to do something slightly > out of the ordinary, such as authentication against something other > than a database or AD, you will be in customization-land once again. > > But the biggest potential problem here, is the generic problem of code > generation. It's great, as long as you want to do exactly what the > code generator lets you do. Once you want to do something else, you > face an uphill battle against all the stuff that's done automatically > for you. > This > has been somewhat of an issue in my own relatively limited ASP.NET > development. > > > WS in CF is easy. blah.cfc?wsdl is about as easy as it gets. > > :-) Integrating your custom authentication is available too. > > AGAIN, how long to implement that? Out of the box, your CFC is not > > protected by a login screen. If you do something with onReuqest, > > maybe but onRequest breaks Remoting calls but I'm not 100% sure on > > the same happening to WS. The thing with what I was saying is he > > didn't even have do any custom authentication. It just worked with > > no code changes major legwork. > > You can't use the onRequest event with web services or Flash Remoting. > However, you can use onRequestStart to perform authentication tests, > and you can use any authentication stuff you want, including CFLOGIN, > to manage authentication and authorization to your web services just > like you would with your regular pages, if you want. So, no extra work > needed there. > > > Yes, those three apps will be separate (web, mobile, desktop). If > > done right, your heavy lifting is done in all three already and you > > can easily throw a new "view" on top of it to make it work. For > > instance, we have an app we're developing and the desktop app took > > about 30 minutes to build (initial version; wasn't robust or > > anything...just a base look at things). > > Well, this is one of those things that tends to be easier said than done. > For example, in my experience, the view of a mobile application is so > significantly different than that of a normal web or desktop > application that you have to do a lot of work to build a new view, and > may even need to reconsider how you're doing things beyond the view. > > > The core code was done already. You are correct with the .NET CF. It > > is only for apps that can deploy .NET CF. Although, the same goes > > for Flash Lite, etc. > > If you wanted to be able to deploy on the widest variety of available > phones and devices, you wouldn't choose .NET CF. It's as simple as > that. No matter what you chose, you'd have a lot of work to get your > solution to work on multiple devices, and I prefer the capabilities of > Windows Mobile devices to pretty much everything else, but the market > share just isn't there yet. > > > Enterprise can be argued, MS or not. The main part I stress when I > > say enterprise is a complete end to end solution. > > Microsoft is the best in providing an end-to-end solution. > Unfortunately, every part involves Windows, which is not a viable > choice for most enterprises. They already have lots of infrastructure > in place, and ripping it out and replacing it with Windows is simply > not an option. > Interoperability is the key to the enterprise, and Java provides that > in spades, simply because it's been around for a while. > > > Yes, CF can integrate nicely with Java. I've always been impressed > > by it. CF developers on this list, raise your hand if you know Java? > > (my hand is down) Raise your hand if you are going to learn Java > > just to extend CF development? (my hand is half-way up. been wanting > > to for years but no time for a new language I will barely use) That > > is the key there. > > Java is a completely different language to learn. ASP.NET has C# and > > that's all you need to know (or vb, j#, etc). > > The fact that CF developers generally don't know Java is a pretty good > indicator that, for most business needs, they don't have to. But if > you had to, I really think that learning Java would be no more > difficult than learning C#. Learning CF itself is pretty trivial, > actually - the difficult part is to learn to build web applications in > general. > > > You are right. Java to .NET would be a better comparison. > > Java can run in many different environments but it seems they whole > > "write once, deploy everwhere" "mantra" never really took over the > > world like it seemed it was supposed to. > > Absolutely. Yet still, your deployment options would go far beyond > various flavors of Windows. > > > Trust me, as said, I could care less about the price changing. I'd > > love it to...seriously. I know the issue of taking away millions of > > dollars in revenue for the sake of the community isn't realistic. > > Also selling it as Enterprise would be harder. You are on the money > > here. I should clarify that "Price is the biggest problem with CF" > > statement. That 100% means in the mind of the developer. PHP > > developers would have nothing to say about CF if the price was gone. > > I don't think that most developers care one way or the other about the > price of the product, since they don't buy it. I don't think that the > members of this list are typical CF developers, generally. I think > that the list has a higher percentage of freelancers and > entrepreneurs, and those people are a lot more sensitive to price > obviously. But CF is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to other > enterprise products like Oracle and Websphere, so there isn't a lot of > price pressure from those enterprises that use it. > > > Phewwww....that took a long minute. :-) No disrespect with comments. > > You have much respect with me Dave. > > No disrespect was assumed, and I likewise respect you as well. And, > believe it or not, I also like .NET - I really think it's good stuff. > I just don't think it'll negatively affect CF too much in the short > term, and in the long term, as Mr. Keynes once said, we are all dead. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, > Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. > Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:254866 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
