The pages we ran for the tests were typical of a particular application we
were looking at coding. The first page was simple HTML. The second page
included a DB query, and table generation, as well as an input box for
adding information. The third page processed the input box, and did a DB
insert. These were the minimal requirements for the application in
question, as the bulk of the business logic would be done via stored
procedures. So, we were looking at testing the web server, not the database
server.
As well, our tests/reports focused on scalability, a rough estimate of
development speed, and the volume of pages the two technologies could
handle. Obviously, we could not do a fair assessment if we could not get
the .NET server running. But that in itself only means that .NET is not yet
stable, and helped to determine which technology we'll focus on for now
(notice the 'for now'... we are not ignoring .NET at all).
All that said, the only thing I think that biased us was that .NET is still
beta. All of us here are looking forward to working with .NET, but don't
feel it is ready yet to produce any results for our clients. Yes, I know
it's capabable, but it is still beta, and who knows what's going to change
between now and the commercial release. (Beta 2 was almost a complete
rewrite, so I've been told).
As I said, .Net appears to offer quite a lot to the world, but until it is
in commercial release, and stabilized, I can't endorse it for any of the
projects I'm working on.
Shawn Grover
-----Original Message-----
From: Billy Cravens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: .NET resources
I would certainly hope so for a production product vs. a Beta 2!!! :)
No offense intended, but I think that you should reevaluate the tests.
>From an overall evaluation standpoint, it sounds a bit thin and
one-sided. There's far more to doing an overall evaluation of a
language than measuring the time it takes to display a form variable.
Database access? Concurrent access? With the push towards web
services, SOAP parsing/generation? Execution caching? Etc. I really
don't know which one is faster (and more robust, and more scalable).
However, I would be interested in seeing a real side-by-side comparison
of all features. Bare bones basics comparisons are in the same book as
the 64-way, 32 terrabyte RDBMS comparisons - they make you say, "So
what?"
I'm one of those weird guys that doesn't believe that Microsoft = evil,
and that CF is the holy grail .... I've played with ASP.net (as well as
the rest of the framework). I think for bare-bones basics, there's
really no difference between it and CF. However, once you start digging
into tiers, caching, and web services, .NET will offer the world a lot.
I hope that Macromedia recognizes that they need to put native UDDI and
SOAP support into CF, etc, to really compete with the frameworks of the
world (.NET, J2EE, etc.)
Here's a good article that generates some interesting arguments about
the necessity to get on the "framework" bandwagon. It's geared towards
the open source community, but I think many of the same arguments could
stand true for CF:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-08-13-009-20-OP
---
Billy Cravens
HR Systems, EDS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 5:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: .NET resources
We recently ran a comparison between .Net and CF5. There is next to no
resources for comparing the two directly. The best we could find was
comparing CF and ASP 3.
Our own tests showed that at this time, CF is much quicker to get setup,
maintain, find support resources for. Whereas the .NET side of things,
while it had quick development, it had troubles moving between servers,
and the .Net server we setup would not function correctly (had our
MCSE/DBA guy working on it for a week straight, a few rebuilds, and
nadda).
Speed wise, CF was able to serve 3 simple pages (simple HTML, simple
form, and simple form processing) to over 4.5 million users in a period
of 12 hours.
So, our conclusion was that CF 5 was the way to go, for now.
If anyone really want's to see the report, email me offline, and I'll
talk to our sales guys about releasing it.
My two cents worth.
Shawn Grover
-----Original Message-----
From: Billy Cravens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: .NET resources
Wrox's Professional CF 5 covers using CF as a SOAP client and server, as
well as tapping into .NET IL's.
---
Billy Cravens
HR Systems, EDS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dawson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:06 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: .NET resources
I am interested in following your presentation as well, if you don't
mind
sharing some information, I got some ears.
Eric Dawson
cut-n-paste
I thought you might find this interesting. A few statements about M$
.Net http://www.aspng.com/learn/differences.aspx
From: "Steve Vosloo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: .NET resources
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:38:54 +0200
Hi all,
Apologies if this topic has already been flogged to death, but ...
In 2 weeks I'm presenting to my company on Microsoft's .NET initiative,
and need some URLs to sink my teeth into. The bits I've seen on MS all
seem to be fairly technical. I'm looking for overview type info, and
ideally with a CF slant.
Thanks
Steve
Development Manager
Vardus Internet Solutions (SA)
Tel: (+27) 21 670 9880
Fax: (+27) 21 674 4549
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: www.vardus.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
