My comments mixed in too :) On May 30, 8:15 pm, "Simon Haddon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes I agree. There are a shortage of CF developers. There are also a > shortage of all developers at the moment. To say CF is dying would indicate > that Adobe don't want to invest in it any more. As for learning CF. Most > ppl learn on the job as it takes only a short time to learn the language.
It is far easier to find a PHP, .NET or even a Java developer than CF. That's just from my personal experience here. The way I see it, if you can't get developers with the appropriate skills you've either got to invest in training them, or switch to another platform. We've elected to slowly move away from CF for that reason. We're not going to drop it altogether, but it certainly won't be the first language choice for new projects like it used to be. > It sound like you have a distast for CF anyway. Some ppl like it others > don't. That is fine and each to their own. Saying you would use ASP.NET or > PHP over CF again sounds like a personal taste not an indication the CF is > dying. Interesting you mention portablilty. Since when is > ASP.NETportable. Since when is PHP portable between different > databases? I would say that CF is the most portable language out of the lot. > Being Java under the hood it makes it portable and distributable in a variety > of formats. It's true I have a certain distaste for CF, but it's mainly due to the implementation of it. I don't like having my code meshed with my layout. Many CF developers are still using of old procedural methods, and maintenance can be a pain. Using a good framework can alleviate this to a certain degree, but its still only half way. The ideal is to use cfc's etc, but I haven't seen them used very much so far. The preference for CF and ASP.NET has only risen out of the shortage for CF developers and the need to move with what the education system is churning out. I agree when you say Java is more portable, but I was think more in terms of hosting companies and what platforms they offer - I don't have any figures to back this up, but i'm certain that 9/10 would support ASP.NET and PHP. Maybe half of that would support CF? > I don't understand the comparson between CF and IIS. IIS can be compared to > Apache but not CF. You can compare CF to any other application server you > like but IIS is a web server. I understand the distinction, but to run ASP.NET you only need IIS (with .NET framework installed). To run CF you need IIS (or Apache) and CF Server. The argument with a Manager would be something like this: "We can build amazing web applications and we need a server with IIS on it. The client tools are all free too... That's it, nothing else to purchase. All the fresh graduates already know the language already so they can start tomorrow!" or "We can build amazing web application and we need a server with IIS, and ColdFusion Server which will set you back a thousand or so, plus the client tools will cost a couple of hundred (if you dont want to use Eclipse)... oh and we'll need to train all the fresh graduates in CF as they only know ASP.NET and PHP." > The IDE for CF that is mostly used for CF is now Eclipse. It is free and > very good. Link it in with CFEclipse, FusionDebug, Mylar, etc and you have > an integrated IDE for free. Most ppl agree the Dreamweaver and Homesite are > pretty average although a few ppl I know swear by Homesite Yeah, I have dabbled with CFEclipse but it just hasn't grabbed me. I probably just need to spend more time using it. :) > You comment about developers is true of any language. Nothing new here. My recent experience has shown that CF developers are especially hard to come by :) > This sounds like a problem with your outsourcing arrangements and not a > fault of the language. Very true... it also indicates the difficulty of finding good CF developers :) > Where do you get you figure from? Or don't you have any. ASP.nET is well > supported and so is PHP, CF and most other languages around. I have no > problems finding a good company that does CF hosting. I would also suggest > that most clients that need a website also need their own server unless you > are talking about tiny sites. If you need your own server then it doesn't > matter what you put on it. It's all just from experience... I can easily be proven wrong, and if so i'll retract the statement(s) :) If each site needs its own server, wouldn't that suggest that convincing the client to spend nothing installing IIS on a windows server is much easier than pursuading them to spend a thousand or so on an additional CF Server? Isnt the end product the same? Cheers, schlub --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
