> If RonR can pretty much do everything CF can do, and it's free - why > would a company pay the extra dollars?
well, that part of it sort-of evolved, but it's not the whole story if you factor in Jeremy's points of moving to .NET, and us with Java/JSP. and as a litmus test and leaving a direct comparison with RonR out of it, I'm still trying to get enough reasons to get 2 lousy boxes upgraded to CF7 to make my life easier - and failing. I was getting so desperate I was hoping for some Flash (Flex) UI to justify the need for remoting (and AMF3), but aparently you can get Flash remoting in Corn Flakes packets now-a-days.... I just hope CF8 has some "must-haves" in there.... On 8/31/06, Mark Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From what I'm reading Barry - your argument comes down to one simple question > - > > If RonR can pretty much do everything CF can do, and it's free - why > would a company pay the extra dollars? > > Would the be correct? > > Mark > > On 8/31/06, Barry Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Barry, I was talking about the frameworks, not Ruby vs CFML - and I > > > think there's been plenty of responses on this thread that include > > > things CF can do that RoR cannot (esp. Java based and all that > > > entails - I take it that QUT aren't a J2EE house). > > > > we will be well on the way by next year, thanx to the introduction of > > Blackboard but we'll be using Java and JSP to hook into the Bb API. > > All but a couple of CF servers will left to fester away, waiting to be > > put out of their misery. Of the remaining ones, I'm hard pressed to > > get enough reasons to upgrade to CF7. > > > > > > But if you're > > > looking for me or anyone else to come up with a RoR is a dud and CF > > > is god's own because of X, it's not going to happen. If you can live > > > with the constraints of RoR or CF, then at the end of the day a > > > skilled development team will make more difference than the platform > > > you choose. > > > > we've already started to blow away the JSP/Java cobwebs to support > > this change. But what you're saying is that there is no compelling > > reason to use CF. If we wanted RAD, then RonR is just as legit.... and > > cheaper! > > > > > I'm personally curious to see how you go as a RoR developer - > > > > nah, I don't like the syntax. I don't like PHP for the same reasons. > > If I have to spend days typing stuff out I might as well enjoy it. > > > > > I think this discussion would have a bit more meat too it if a current > > > RoR developer were involved. > > > > from this end the discussion points are being driven from a staff > > CF'er now converted to RonR. did you see Sean Corfields blog post that > > touched on this a while back? and the response of former CF'ers now > > using RonR? Sure, your right. the stuff is just a hammer. But we also > > know that developers don't always make the platform choices for > > projects. > > > > I give up. I'll shut up now. I must be the only person on-list that > > thinks RubyOnRails could make a serious dent to CF's market share. and > > that the current feature set - for the price and compared to other > > platforms - could do a lot more to entice projects to buy into CF. > > > > > -- > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > W: www.compoundtheory.com > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
