RE: Studio MX 2004 with Flash Professional
eCost ( www.ecost.com http://www.ecost.com/) is usually much cheaper than MM. -- Michael Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ From: Burns, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX 2004 with Flash Professional Does anyone know where to get Studio MX 2004 w/ Flash Professional for less than on Macromedia's site?I'm looking to purchase it and was curious if anyone had any leads on a cheaper source.Thanks! John Burns _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Studio MX 2004 with Flash Professional
You might want to do a search at any of the comparison shopping sites. Shopping.com and CNet come to mind. Christian -Original Message- From: Burns, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 January 2004 15:19 To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX 2004 with Flash Professional Does anyone know where to get Studio MX 2004 w/ Flash Professional for less than on Macromedia's site?I'm looking to purchase it and was curious if anyone had any leads on a cheaper source.Thanks! John Burns _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Studio MX 2004 with Flash Professional
Try Ebay. I'm not sure if it's cheaper but I have found boxed copies of MS software on there for a lot cheaper than in the stores. Dan Phillips CFXHosting.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Burns, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX 2004 with Flash Professional Does anyone know where to get Studio MX 2004 w/ Flash Professional for less than on Macromedia's site?I'm looking to purchase it and was curious if anyone had any leads on a cheaper source.Thanks! John Burns _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Studio MX 2004 licensing and upgrade protection
You should contact MM sales directly, not 3rd party suppliers like CDW. AFAIK there is no official upgrade path right now for subscriptions, but I've seen it mentioned a lot and many subscribers were concerned about it and I think MM is working on this. Sam -- Blog:http://www.rewindlife.com Chart: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting -- -Original Message- From: Candace Cottrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:17 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: OT: Studio MX 2004 licensing and upgrade protection So, I am wondering if I am the only one in this boat... We bought 2 years of upgrade protection on Studio MX. Flash MX 2004 Pro comes out and it's not included in upgrade protection. Ok, I can understand that. We need to buy upgrades to Pro. BUT... according to CDW, we LOSE the 2 yrs worth of subscription and have to RE-BUY the entire thing and pay the full price. Is there no upgrade to upgrade protection?? Am I on the right track here? Can anyone help me??? Candace K. Cottrell, Web Developer [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Studio MX install issues - help on upgrade
how about the serial for the new MX stuff? ..tony Tony Weeg Senior Web Developer Information System Design Navtrak, Inc. Fleet Management Solutions www.navtrak.net 410.548.2337 -Original Message- From: James Mathieson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:35 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX install issues - help on upgrade Heya, folks, OK, so wanting to support my favorite software company, I purchased Studio MX (I'll admit, I use CF Studio for everything, but I figured I might as well get the whole bundle and finally sit down and learn how to create Flash goodness). According to the upgrade chart, since I have CF Studio 4.5, I was eligable for the upgrade. The sticker on the box even lists CF Studio 4.5 or higher as required. So I stick Studio MX in to install, pop in the nice shiny new serial number, agree to the EULA, get to the page that tells me to enter either the (2) serial numbers from qualifying products -or- the serial number from the studio product, enter my serial number from my CF Studio (4.5), _get_ a green check next to that line (which I assume means it accepts the serial number...), and .. .and, nothing. the [NEXT] button is not live and ready to go. It sits there, I assume waiting for me to enter another product's serial number. I've tried putting the CF Studio number on the second line as well, but no go. And there's nothing (that I can find) on MM's website, forums, reasonable google-search, or CD that gives any indication what to do if upgrading from 1 product. Is there some unholy trick involved? Do I need to know the Secret Handshake? Is there some other number I'm supposed to use with it? Or am I just completely mislead that I can indeed upgrade from my clunky old CF Studio 4.5, despite what the marketing says? Cheers, James (Really, MM guys, I *do* want to try DWMX! Honestly! Despite what some reviews here have said) James Mathieson Information Systems Manager The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda, MD 20814-2197 PH: 301-897-9770 Fax: 301-530-2471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wildlife.org/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Studio MX install issues - help on upgrade
Hi James: I remember having a similar issue when upgrading from 4.5 to MX. I recall having to enter the serial number a few times before it finally caught it. Try entering it all upper-case (both the old and new) and try simply retyping it. Sorry I don't know the specific thing I did, but I remember it was kind of funky. -D ### David Notik Digital202, LLC Imagination gone digital. Web: www.digital202.com E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: (206) 575-1717 Mobile: (206) 351-3948 ### -Original Message- From: James Mathieson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:35 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX install issues - help on upgrade Heya, folks, OK, so wanting to support my favorite software company, I purchased Studio MX (I'll admit, I use CF Studio for everything, but I figured I might as well get the whole bundle and finally sit down and learn how to create Flash goodness). According to the upgrade chart, since I have CF Studio 4.5, I was eligable for the upgrade. The sticker on the box even lists CF Studio 4.5 or higher as required. So I stick Studio MX in to install, pop in the nice shiny new serial number, agree to the EULA, get to the page that tells me to enter either the (2) serial numbers from qualifying products -or- the serial number from the studio product, enter my serial number from my CF Studio (4.5), _get_ a green check next to that line (which I assume means it accepts the serial number...), and .. .and, nothing. the [NEXT] button is not live and ready to go. It sits there, I assume waiting for me to enter another product's serial number. I've tried putting the CF Studio number on the second line as well, but no go. And there's nothing (that I can find) on MM's website, forums, reasonable google-search, or CD that gives any indication what to do if upgrading from 1 product. Is there some unholy trick involved? Do I need to know the Secret Handshake? Is there some other number I'm supposed to use with it? Or am I just completely mislead that I can indeed upgrade from my clunky old CF Studio 4.5, despite what the marketing says? Cheers, James (Really, MM guys, I *do* want to try DWMX! Honestly! Despite what some reviews here have said) James Mathieson Information Systems Manager The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda, MD 20814-2197 PH: 301-897-9770 Fax: 301-530-2471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wildlife.org/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Re: Studio MX install issues - help on upgrade
I saw someone telling you to try again. If that does not work, maybe restart and try to install. If that doesn't work, you can contact me and I can try to help out. Sorry you are having an issue. _ Matt Brown Community Manager Macromedia (415) 706-6543 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For daily Dreamweaver news and info: http://shorterlink.com/?KB8LAL ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Studio MX
Jeffry Houser wrote: Note: never, ever compare boolean expressions to 0 or 1 (or false / true), especially to 1 (true). cfif f(x) is not always equivalent to cfif f(x) eq true - precisely because people can be lazy about mixing numbers with real booleans. I am completely confused by this. What should you compare Boolean Expressions to if not False / True or 0 / 1 ? I would assume that Sean meant to never do something like: CFSET myBool = true CFIF myBool EQ true ... /CFIF When instead, you can go with: CFIF myBool ... /CFIF But, that's just my interpretation 8^). -- Mosh Teitelbaum evoch, LLC Tel: (301) 625-9191 Fax: (301) 933-3651 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.evoch.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Re: Studio MX
At 03:41 PM 11/9/2002 -0800, you wrote: Note: never, ever compare boolean expressions to 0 or 1 (or false / true), especially to 1 (true). cfif f(x) is not always equivalent to cfif f(x) eq true - precisely because people can be lazy about mixing numbers with real booleans. I am completely confused by this. What should you compare Boolean Expressions to if not False / True or 0 / 1 ? Note 2: don't write this sort of thing either: cfif somecondition cfset x = 1 cfelse cfset x = 0 /cfif Think about that... you really mean this, don't you: cfset x = somecondition (and then treat 'x' as a boolean) The following seems a more common version of that: cfif somecondition cfset y = false cfelse cfset y = true /cfif Why not: cfset y = not somecondition Are you saying that the conditional examples are wrong, or the one-line examples are more efficient? -- Jeffry Houser | mailto:jeff;farcryfly.com DotComIt, Putting you on the web AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773 -- My CFMX Book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072225564/instantcoldfu-20 My Books: http://www.instantcoldfusion.com My Band: http://www.farcryfly.com ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Studio MX
I would argue (after working with a great deal of C++ code) that evaluating zero and non-zero as false and true is just as common as direct syntax. Most C++ logic blocks are built on exactly this type of integer logic. -mk -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwatts;figleaf.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 6:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX Pedantry can be dangerous. While Len returns an integer, CF treats non-zero integer values as boolean true values when they're used in boolean expressions. Yes, so does C and C++ but that doesn't make it good style, IMO. No, but it doesn't make it bad style, either. One of the things that differentiates style from utility is that style really doesn't matter. I'm usually on the other side of the fence in these sorts of arguments, but this, to me, seems about on the same level as how you should use curly braces in C-style languages. I guess James Gosling et al agree with you on this, though. Now, you may argue that your explicit syntax is more readable, but I'd counter that by saying that any competent CF developer should know that integers are treated as boolean values. As would any C or C++ developer. Again, it doesn't make it good style. I prefer cfif len(x) gt 0 as an explicit test although I probably wouldn't take a developer out and shoot them for just writing cfif len(x). It is good to know where you stand on the death penalty! I *would* take them out and shoot them for writing cfif not len(x) which I think is a horribly ugly and easily misread condition! cfif len(x) eq 0 is *much* clearer. I've seen many 'non-programmers' write the equivalent of 'not len(x)' when they really mean something like 'len(x) ne 0'! My motto is: be explicit. Note: never, ever compare boolean expressions to 0 or 1 (or false / true), especially to 1 (true). cfif f(x) is not always equivalent to cfif f(x) eq true - precisely because people can be lazy about mixing numbers with real booleans. Again, I would agree with you on the general concept that explicit, self-documenting code is superior to other code. I just don't see this as making that much of a difference in that direction. Once you learn the simple fact that CF can evaluate integers as boolean values, it's just not that complicated to read. As for what non-programmers may write, well, that's a whole other kettle of fish, isn't it? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: Studio MX
cfmode type=pedant And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) should be cfif Len(Form.Formname) GT 0 BECAUSE Len() DOES NOT RETURN A BOOLEAN! /cfmode Pedantry can be dangerous. While Len returns an integer, CF treats non-zero integer values as boolean true values when they're used in boolean expressions. Now, you may argue that your explicit syntax is more readable, but I'd counter that by saying that any competent CF developer should know that integers are treated as boolean values. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: Studio MX
So I'm just left looking for a claification on this part of my question: I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? Yes, I think so. I'd recommend that you try out Dreamweaver MX using the free, time-limited trial version, but there's no reason to stop using CF Studio if you're happy with it. If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Yes. All of this is available somewhere on the MM site. I'm not sure where, but I imagine this could easily be found in the list archives. Which brings up another point -- I also want to get the documentation for CFMX. What's the best way to do that? The documentation comes with CFMX, so if you download that, you'll get it all in HTML. Or, you can download it from the MM site in PDF format. Or, you can go to http://livedocs.macromedia.com/. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: Studio MX
On Saturday, Nov 9, 2002, at 15:10 US/Pacific, Dave Watts wrote: Pedantry can be dangerous. While Len returns an integer, CF treats non-zero integer values as boolean true values when they're used in boolean expressions. Yes, so does C and C++ but that doesn't make it good style, IMO. Now, you may argue that your explicit syntax is more readable, but I'd counter that by saying that any competent CF developer should know that integers are treated as boolean values. As would any C or C++ developer. Again, it doesn't make it good style. I prefer cfif len(x) gt 0 as an explicit test although I probably wouldn't take a developer out and shoot them for just writing cfif len(x). I *would* take them out and shoot them for writing cfif not len(x) which I think is a horribly ugly and easily misread condition! cfif len(x) eq 0 is *much* clearer. I've seen many 'non-programmers' write the equivalent of 'not len(x)' when they really mean something like 'len(x) ne 0'! My motto is: be explicit. Note: never, ever compare boolean expressions to 0 or 1 (or false / true), especially to 1 (true). cfif f(x) is not always equivalent to cfif f(x) eq true - precisely because people can be lazy about mixing numbers with real booleans. Note 2: don't write this sort of thing either: cfif somecondition cfset x = 1 cfelse cfset x = 0 /cfif Think about that... you really mean this, don't you: cfset x = somecondition (and then treat 'x' as a boolean) The following seems a more common version of that: cfif somecondition cfset y = false cfelse cfset y = true /cfif Why not: cfset y = not somecondition SOAP is not so much a means of transmitting data but a mechanism for calling COM objects over the Web. -- not Microsoft (surprisingly!) ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Studio MX
Pedantry can be dangerous. While Len returns an integer, CF treats non-zero integer values as boolean true values when they're used in boolean expressions. Yes, so does C and C++ but that doesn't make it good style, IMO. No, but it doesn't make it bad style, either. One of the things that differentiates style from utility is that style really doesn't matter. I'm usually on the other side of the fence in these sorts of arguments, but this, to me, seems about on the same level as how you should use curly braces in C-style languages. I guess James Gosling et al agree with you on this, though. Now, you may argue that your explicit syntax is more readable, but I'd counter that by saying that any competent CF developer should know that integers are treated as boolean values. As would any C or C++ developer. Again, it doesn't make it good style. I prefer cfif len(x) gt 0 as an explicit test although I probably wouldn't take a developer out and shoot them for just writing cfif len(x). It is good to know where you stand on the death penalty! I *would* take them out and shoot them for writing cfif not len(x) which I think is a horribly ugly and easily misread condition! cfif len(x) eq 0 is *much* clearer. I've seen many 'non-programmers' write the equivalent of 'not len(x)' when they really mean something like 'len(x) ne 0'! My motto is: be explicit. Note: never, ever compare boolean expressions to 0 or 1 (or false / true), especially to 1 (true). cfif f(x) is not always equivalent to cfif f(x) eq true - precisely because people can be lazy about mixing numbers with real booleans. Again, I would agree with you on the general concept that explicit, self-documenting code is superior to other code. I just don't see this as making that much of a difference in that direction. Once you learn the simple fact that CF can evaluate integers as boolean values, it's just not that complicated to read. As for what non-programmers may write, well, that's a whole other kettle of fish, isn't it? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Studio MX
My understanding is that there is no longer a CF Studio, its now fully integrated with Dreamweaver MX. Jason Lees Systems Developer National Express Coaches Ltd. -Original Message- From: Owens, Howard [mailto:HOwens;insidevc.com] Sent: 07 November 2002 20:49 To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX I'm trying to decide the best upgrade path ... Some time in the next year, we'll upgrade our servers to MX, so I will want to upgrade my development environment, too. Currently, I have Studio5 and the dev version of the server for 5.0. I also have UltraDev, but rarely use it. I do all of my coding (and very little design) in Studio. That's the way I like it. Should I upgrade to Studio MX? Will I like it if I love the current version of Studio, or does the homesite aspect of Studio disappear? If it does, but I get MX anyway, can I retain the install of Studio5 (without any hassle, such as fussing with the registry), or does MX overwrite/take over 5? Should I upgrade to the latest version of HomeSite instead? I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Thanks. H. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Studio MX
You can't actually buy the upgraded CFStudio/Homesite as a separate product. If you buy Dreamweaver MX, Homesite+ is on the CD which you may install under the license agreement. Jb. -Original Message- From: Jason Lees (National Express) [mailto:Jason.Lees;NationalExpress.Co.uk] Sent: 08 November 2002 08:31 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX My understanding is that there is no longer a CF Studio, its now fully integrated with Dreamweaver MX. Jason Lees Systems Developer National Express Coaches Ltd. -Original Message- From: Owens, Howard [mailto:HOwens;insidevc.com] Sent: 07 November 2002 20:49 To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX I'm trying to decide the best upgrade path ... Some time in the next year, we'll upgrade our servers to MX, so I will want to upgrade my development environment, too. Currently, I have Studio5 and the dev version of the server for 5.0. I also have UltraDev, but rarely use it. I do all of my coding (and very little design) in Studio. That's the way I like it. Should I upgrade to Studio MX? Will I like it if I love the current version of Studio, or does the homesite aspect of Studio disappear? If it does, but I get MX anyway, can I retain the install of Studio5 (without any hassle, such as fussing with the registry), or does MX overwrite/take over 5? Should I upgrade to the latest version of HomeSite instead? I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Thanks. H. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Studio MX
I certainly wouldnt say integrated... I would say 'replaced' as DWMX -Original Message- From: Jason Lees (National Express) [mailto:Jason.Lees;NationalExpress.Co.uk] Sent: 08 November 2002 08:31 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX My understanding is that there is no longer a CF Studio, its now fully integrated with Dreamweaver MX. Jason Lees Systems Developer National Express Coaches Ltd. -Original Message- From: Owens, Howard [mailto:HOwens;insidevc.com] Sent: 07 November 2002 20:49 To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX I'm trying to decide the best upgrade path ... Some time in the next year, we'll upgrade our servers to MX, so I will want to upgrade my development environment, too. Currently, I have Studio5 and the dev version of the server for 5.0. I also have UltraDev, but rarely use it. I do all of my coding (and very little design) in Studio. That's the way I like it. Should I upgrade to Studio MX? Will I like it if I love the current version of Studio, or does the homesite aspect of Studio disappear? If it does, but I get MX anyway, can I retain the install of Studio5 (without any hassle, such as fussing with the registry), or does MX overwrite/take over 5? Should I upgrade to the latest version of HomeSite instead? I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Thanks. H. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
RE: Studio MX
Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. To be fair to Macromedia, the code base for Studio was not in their strategic direction and therefore very expensive for them to maintain it. This probably means that the product will die leaving the developer to independently build enhancement kludges that will bolt on to their current Studio versions. I think the CF development community surprised MacroMedia on how passionate we are for CF and it turns out that Studio was one of our comfort foods as well. Dave Adams CFUG Ottawa -Original Message- From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (REC) [mailto:Neil.Robertson-Ravo;csd.reedexpo.com] Sent: November 8, 2002 5:37 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX I certainly wouldnt say integrated... I would say 'replaced' as DWMX -Original Message- From: Jason Lees (National Express) [mailto:Jason.Lees;NationalExpress.Co.uk] Sent: 08 November 2002 08:31 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX My understanding is that there is no longer a CF Studio, its now fully integrated with Dreamweaver MX. Jason Lees Systems Developer National Express Coaches Ltd. -Original Message- From: Owens, Howard [mailto:HOwens;insidevc.com] Sent: 07 November 2002 20:49 To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX I'm trying to decide the best upgrade path ... Some time in the next year, we'll upgrade our servers to MX, so I will want to upgrade my development environment, too. Currently, I have Studio5 and the dev version of the server for 5.0. I also have UltraDev, but rarely use it. I do all of my coding (and very little design) in Studio. That's the way I like it. Should I upgrade to Studio MX? Will I like it if I love the current version of Studio, or does the homesite aspect of Studio disappear? If it does, but I get MX anyway, can I retain the install of Studio5 (without any hassle, such as fussing with the registry), or does MX overwrite/take over 5? Should I upgrade to the latest version of HomeSite instead? I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Thanks. H. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: Studio MX
David Adams wrote: Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime in with my opinion. I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here at Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer layout that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the files down below. I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it after we upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Studio MX
Howard, I forced myself to switch to Studio MX from Cold Fusion Studio 5 when it was released. Months later, and a jar full of complaints, I can honestly say that Dreamweaver MX does not meet the high standards that Studio 5 set. Dreamweaver is great for designers and n00bs. Like Forta said at devCon, advanced cold fusion developers are the minority. We can't really expect MM to develop products only a small percentage of the industry will use. :( It does have some great drag-n-drop features with cold fusion MX, if you are into that sort of thing. Call me old fashioned, but I ENJOY writing code. But alas, I think you'll be disappointed. Definitely check out the trial before you move your projects over. Adam Wayne Lehman -Original Message- From: Owens, Howard [mailto:HOwens;insidevc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:49 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX I'm trying to decide the best upgrade path ... Some time in the next year, we'll upgrade our servers to MX, so I will want to upgrade my development environment, too. Currently, I have Studio5 and the dev version of the server for 5.0. I also have UltraDev, but rarely use it. I do all of my coding (and very little design) in Studio. That's the way I like it. Should I upgrade to Studio MX? Will I like it if I love the current version of Studio, or does the homesite aspect of Studio disappear? If it does, but I get MX anyway, can I retain the install of Studio5 (without any hassle, such as fussing with the registry), or does MX overwrite/take over 5? Should I upgrade to the latest version of HomeSite instead? I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Thanks. H. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Studio MX
There are a lot of issues with Dreamweaver MX that are really just a matter of getting used to. Studio does it this way, Dreamweaver does it that way, and once you're used to it, it works just as fine. I love the file upload part of DWMX. This is one of the great features of Studio I always wished would have worked and never did. However Rick, I agree with you about the explorer layout. If you have a site with lots of directories under the root, and each has a index.cfm file, its awful easy to pick up the wrong one and work on it. Or work on one, save it, then upload the wrong one to the site, so the change you thought you made hasn't been deployed.I think of the two approaches, Studio had the better one. I use both Studio and DWMX. When I'm doing routine work, I use Dreamweaver. I think it's quicker overall making the change, and a single click to upload it ot the server without having to navigate to the server's proper folder. But when I'm doing something involving more than basic code, I use Studio. But I think it's really our responsibility as CF developers to learn the tools we have available - or at least give them a good chance. That's why I use DWMX. I figured I owe it to Macromedia to learn how their tool works. And it's better in a lot of ways. Cheers, Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP WebWorks -Original Message- From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com] Sent: Saturday, 9 November 2002 2:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX David Adams wrote: Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime in with my opinion. I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here at Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer layout that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the files down below. I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it after we upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: Studio MX
Rick, Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and folders together... If you have a complex directory structure it means constantly scrolling over to the right to find the right file. Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code. One I saw one demonstrated that was the data-entry wizard. It built a form for entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select the form elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You go through the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation code. But the CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation: cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ validate blah /cfif Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if CF server folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all. -mk P.S. - Studio 5 rocks. -Original Message- From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX David Adams wrote: Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime in with my opinion. I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here at Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer layout that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the files down below. I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it after we upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Studio MX
I am fairly new to CFML (3 months). You mentioned the rookie use
of pound signs. How else do you identify variables?
Robert J. Polickoski
Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc.
(540) 842-6339
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM - RobertJFP
-- Original Message --
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:35:02 -0600
Rick,
Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and
folders
together... If you have a complex directory structure it means
constantly
scrolling over to the right to find the right file.
Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code.
One I saw
one demonstrated that was the data-entry wizard. It built a
form for
entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select
the form
elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You
go through
the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation
code. But the
CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation:
cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ
validate blah
/cfif
Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if
CF server
folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all.
-mk
P.S. - Studio 5 rocks.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Studio MX
David Adams wrote:
Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch
Homesite MX. In
our lives we need more simplicity not complexity.
I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime
in with
my opinion.
I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here
at
Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer
layout
that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the
files down
below.
I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it
after we
upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks.
- Rick
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Re: Studio MX
Mark A. Kruger - CFG wrote:
CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation:
cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ
validate blah
/cfif
Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if CF server
folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all.
Hahahahha... isn't that one of the things every one of us has been
taught to avoid for performance reasons? =)
- Rick
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: Studio MX
What he is talking about is inside, lets say the cfif tag, cf variables
do not need pound signs around them.
Clint
-Original Message-
From: Robert Polickoski [mailto:rpolickoski;isrd.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Studio MX
I am fairly new to CFML (3 months). You mentioned the rookie use
of pound signs. How else do you identify variables?
Robert J. Polickoski
Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc.
(540) 842-6339
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM - RobertJFP
-- Original Message --
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:35:02 -0600
Rick,
Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and
folders
together... If you have a complex directory structure it means
constantly
scrolling over to the right to find the right file.
Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code.
One I saw
one demonstrated that was the data-entry wizard. It built a
form for
entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select
the form
elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You
go through
the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation
code. But the
CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation:
cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ
validate blah
/cfif
Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if
CF server
folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all.
-mk
P.S. - Studio 5 rocks.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Studio MX
David Adams wrote:
Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch
Homesite MX. In
our lives we need more simplicity not complexity.
I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime
in with
my opinion.
I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here
at
Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer
layout
that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the
files down
below.
I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it
after we
upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks.
- Rick
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Studio MX
You only need the # signs when outputting the value of a variable or using it inside a string. For example: cfset x = y + 1 I didn't output x or y so I never needed the pound. cfoutput x is #x# /cfoutput Here I need the pound sign. It helps tell CF where the variable is. One more example: cfset name = Your name is #name# In this case, the variable was embedded in a string. The # signs tell CF to evaluate it. However, I could also write it as: cfset name = Your name is name === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Hire Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus Yahoo IM : morpheus My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda -Original Message- From: Robert Polickoski [mailto:rpolickoski;isrd.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:42 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX I am fairly new to CFML (3 months). You mentioned the rookie use of pound signs. How else do you identify variables? Robert J. Polickoski Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc. (540) 842-6339 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM - RobertJFP -- Original Message -- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:35:02 -0600 Rick, Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and folders together... If you have a complex directory structure it means constantly scrolling over to the right to find the right file. Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code. One I saw one demonstrated that was the data-entry wizard. It built a form for entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select the form elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You go through the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation code. But the CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation: cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ validate blah /cfif Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if CF server folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all. -mk P.S. - Studio 5 rocks. -Original Message- From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX David Adams wrote: Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime in with my opinion. I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here at Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer layout that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the files down below. I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it after we upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: Studio MX
There are, of course many still using Studio 4.5, and an increasing number migrating to StudioMX and Homesite+ There are a couple of features that disappeared with the MX version due to the Adobe Lawsuit, however, many work-arounds have been posted from time to time, and there is an option for the hard core coders to work in a relatively familiar environment, as well as the newbies who prefer to work in a GUI environment. StudioMX also easily switches back and forth to suit the user, and is so integrated with Flash, Fireworks, Freehand, etc. that more and more are beginning to swear by it. There is a learning curve, and that alone meets with some resistance from the old-line coders (like me) that are accustomed to working in a high production environment and are reluctant to take the Production hit while learning to navigate around in DWMX to get the job done. It does appear that MM wants to make developers out of designers, and designers out of developers, and in many cases, based on history this is a twain that is having great difficulty being met. My suggestion for those who do only coding, stick with the tools you are familiar with and are the most productive with, but for the ones who are trying to do a mix of design and development, and are more comfortable in a GUI environment, then MX is the way to go. Sales records show that DWMX is very popular indeed, especially when it can be used in a variety of environments, such as JavaScript, PHP, and others, in addition to ColdFusion. It is a versatile tool, but does require getting used to. Just my .02. = Douglas White group Manager mailto:doug;samcfug.org http://www.samcfug.org = - Original Message - From: Rick Root [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Studio MX | David Adams wrote: | Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In | our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. | | I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime in with | my opinion. | | I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here at | Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer layout | that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the files down | below. | | I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it after we | upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. | | - Rick | | | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
RE: Studio MX
As I learned it, pound signs are really only needed when CFOUTPUTting variables and for certain CF tag parameters. For comparisons and functions/expressions, drop the pound signs for clarity and--I think--better performance. cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ should be cfif Form.Formname NEQ And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) Chris Lofback Sr. Web Developer TRX Integration 28051 US 19 N., Ste. C Clearwater, FL 33761 www.trxi.com -Original Message- From: Robert Polickoski [mailto:rpolickoski;isrd.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:42 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX I am fairly new to CFML (3 months). You mentioned the rookie use of pound signs. How else do you identify variables? Robert J. Polickoski Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc. (540) 842-6339 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM - RobertJFP -- Original Message -- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:35:02 -0600 Rick, Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and folders together... If you have a complex directory structure it means constantly scrolling over to the right to find the right file. Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code. One I saw one demonstrated that was the data-entry wizard. It built a form for entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select the form elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You go through the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation code. But the CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation: cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ validate blah /cfif Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if CF server folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all. -mk P.S. - Studio 5 rocks. -Original Message- From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX David Adams wrote: Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime in with my opinion. I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here at Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer layout that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the files down below. I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it after we upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
RE: Studio MX
No # signs. cfif form.whatever EQ Test /cfif On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Robert Polickoski wrote: I am fairly new to CFML (3 months). You mentioned the rookie use of pound signs. How else do you identify variables? Robert J. Polickoski Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc. (540) 842-6339 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM - RobertJFP -- Original Message -- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:35:02 -0600 Rick, Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and folders together... If you have a complex directory structure it means constantly scrolling over to the right to find the right file. Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code. One I saw one demonstrated that was the data-entry wizard. It built a form for entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select the form elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You go through the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation code. But the CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation: cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ validate blah /cfif Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if CF server folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all. -mk P.S. - Studio 5 rocks. -Original Message- From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX David Adams wrote: Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime in with my opinion. I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here at Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer layout that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the files down below. I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it after we upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: Studio MX
OK. Enough of the sermonizing as to why people are using this that and the other; why coders are coders and designers are designers and the twain shall never meet; and all sort of idiotic posturing. There are THREE (3) core reasons that people whom have been in use of ColdFusion Studio have as a problem with Dreamweaver MX: 1) It is SLOOW. Slow, as in molasses-slow. I have a PIII/866 at work, 256MB RAM, and it hangs up and plays spin-the-cursor constantly on me. This is ludicrous. What is the recommended platform? PIV+512MB RAM? What kind of test platform were you using, Macromedia? 2) Text-searching. When you are doing coding, you need good and fast find/replace, and most importantly, REGEX searching. Dreamwaver MX has piss-poor support for these, eons below CF Studio's functionality. 3) Buggy. Need I say any more? I don't care whether you use Mac or PC, there is too many bugs that come a-cropper at the worst possible moments for Dreamweaver MX to be useful for any sort of truly useful productivity. Add on top the aforementioned issues, and CF Studio (on PC) is the way to go (still). As a sop, however, I will give one absolute positive: 1) Site Management. This is a neat feature. Unfortunately, it does straight time-stamp comparison instead of byte-length; unfortunately, it too is buggy; however, it si just about the only thing I use Dreamweaver MX for. Improve it slightly, and we are yours forever. PS What exactly is the purpose of Contribute? Is that FrontPage MX? How useful is it to any non-technical people--really? What is the point? ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Re: Studio MX
cfmode type=pedant And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) should be cfif Len(Form.Formname) GT 0 BECAUSE Len() DOES NOT RETURN A BOOLEAN! /cfmode I'll go away now.. Stephen ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: Studio MX
It absolutely causes better performance. As of CFMX, that is. The underlying Java translation is much quicker if it is not doing an absolute string comparison. Lofback, Chris wrote: drop the pound signs for clarity and--I think--better performance. -- Kreig Zimmerman : Sr. Web Programmer : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Four Eyes Productions : Brooklyn, NY : [718]254-9557 x[104] ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: Studio MX
No. Len() is evaluated as a Boolean because in CF, True/False, Yes/No, and 1(+)/0 are all evaluated as Boolean pairs. Trust me. I use this everywhere in my own code. Stephen Moretti wrote: cfmode type=pedant And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) should be cfif Len(Form.Formname) GT 0 BECAUSE Len() DOES NOT RETURN A BOOLEAN! /cfmode I'll go away now.. Stephen ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: Studio MX
Actually, in CF 0 evaluates to a boolean false. Any non zero integer evaluates to a boolean true CFSET boolFalse = 0 CFSET boolTrue = 1 CFIF boolFalse boolFalse does not equal zeroBR CFELSE boolFalse equals zeroBR /CFIF CFIF boolTrue boolTrue does not equal zeroBR CFELSE boolTrue equals zeroBR /CFIF Cheers, Jeff - Original Message - From: Stephen Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Studio MX cfmode type=pedant And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) should be cfif Len(Form.Formname) GT 0 BECAUSE Len() DOES NOT RETURN A BOOLEAN! /cfmode I'll go away now.. Stephen ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: Studio MX
Hey Kreig, Thanks for sharing your ideas here regarding the obsticles some CFers have with Dreamweaver. I've heard a variety of issues mentioned, some of which you touch upon, some of which you don't. The Dreamweaver development team actually has a special group of folks dedicated to working out some of these issues for CFers. You may have heard that at DevCon, there was a special session where CFers discussed their thoughts about Dreamweaver and, Dreamweaver and HS+/CFStudio aside, what their ideal IDE would be like. I think you'll find that Macromedia continues to work to provide CFers and other developers with the best possible IDEs, be it in HomeSite+ or in Dreamweaver. If you haven't already, please be sure to share your thoughts on this with the Dreamweaver team by submitting your feedback at: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform?6213=6 The more feedback they get via this form, the more likely they will be able to provide you with a tool you're completely happy with. Thanks! Vernon Viehe ColdFusion Community Manager Macromedia, Inc. -- Macromedia Certified Professional CF blog at http://vvmx.blogspot.com -Original Message- From: Kreig Zimmerman [mailto:kkz;foureyes.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:14 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX OK. Enough of the sermonizing as to why people are using this that and the other; why coders are coders and designers are designers and the twain shall never meet; and all sort of idiotic posturing. There are THREE (3) core reasons that people whom have been in use of ColdFusion Studio have as a problem with Dreamweaver MX: 1) It is SLOOW. Slow, as in molasses-slow. I have a PIII/866 at work, 256MB RAM, and it hangs up and plays spin-the-cursor constantly on me. This is ludicrous. What is the recommended platform? PIV+512MB RAM? What kind of test platform were you using, Macromedia? 2) Text-searching. When you are doing coding, you need good and fast find/replace, and most importantly, REGEX searching. Dreamwaver MX has piss-poor support for these, eons below CF Studio's functionality. 3) Buggy. Need I say any more? I don't care whether you use Mac or PC, there is too many bugs that come a-cropper at the worst possible moments for Dreamweaver MX to be useful for any sort of truly useful productivity. Add on top the aforementioned issues, and CF Studio (on PC) is the way to go (still). As a sop, however, I will give one absolute positive: 1) Site Management. This is a neat feature. Unfortunately, it does straight time-stamp comparison instead of byte-length; unfortunately, it too is buggy; however, it si just about the only thing I use Dreamweaver MX for. Improve it slightly, and we are yours forever. PS What exactly is the purpose of Contribute? Is that FrontPage MX? How useful is it to any non-technical people--really? What is the point? ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: Studio MX
I think stephen was thinking more future wise Len() actually returns an Integer (or maybe a long) and if CF was to move into a Typed language then a CFIF Len() would be incorrect without some sort of conversion. HTH -Original Message- From: Kreig Zimmerman [mailto:kkz;foureyes.com] Sent: Friday, November 8, 2002 16:29 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX No. Len() is evaluated as a Boolean because in CF, True/False, Yes/No, and 1(+)/0 are all evaluated as Boolean pairs. Trust me. I use this everywhere in my own code. Stephen Moretti wrote: cfmode type=pedant And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) should be cfif Len(Form.Formname) GT 0 BECAUSE Len() DOES NOT RETURN A BOOLEAN! /cfmode I'll go away now.. Stephen ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
RE: Studio MX
Nah... I think you are giving him too much credit g. -Original Message- From: Mike Townend [mailto:mike;cfnews.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:50 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX I think stephen was thinking more future wise Len() actually returns an Integer (or maybe a long) and if CF was to move into a Typed language then a CFIF Len() would be incorrect without some sort of conversion. HTH -Original Message- From: Kreig Zimmerman [mailto:kkz;foureyes.com] Sent: Friday, November 8, 2002 16:29 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX No. Len() is evaluated as a Boolean because in CF, True/False, Yes/No, and 1(+)/0 are all evaluated as Boolean pairs. Trust me. I use this everywhere in my own code. Stephen Moretti wrote: cfmode type=pedant And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) should be cfif Len(Form.Formname) GT 0 BECAUSE Len() DOES NOT RETURN A BOOLEAN! /cfmode I'll go away now.. Stephen ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Studio MX
Robert,
Pound signs are used to output variables where you want them display or
(in some cases) to concatenate and create a new variable. They are never
used on the left side of an assigment statement.
wrong...
cfset #x# = 'blah'
...right
cfset x = 'blah'
wrong
cfif #form.x# IS 'blah'
. right.
cfif Form.x IS 'blah'
Some folks might use them for dynamic evaluation - to determine a
variable name at run time. For example:
cfif Structkeyexists(#x#)
This is also unnessasary in this case because X can stand alone as in...
cfif Structkeyexist(x)
One case where it is sometimes acceptable is when you are building an
entirely new string on the fly for dynamic evaluation. For example:
cfif IsDefined(Form.checkbox_#x#)
This sometimes comes into play when you have a series of form elelements
generated from a query and you want access them at runtime without knowing
in advance how many of them there are - or which items are in the query etc.
For the most part, pound signs are unnecessary in about 95% of the cases
INSIDE a CF tag (cfif Cfset etc.). Typically they are used just to send
variable values to the output buffer ... .as in cfoutput#x#/cfoutput
-mk
-Original Message-
From: Robert Polickoski [mailto:rpolickoski;isrd.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Studio MX
I am fairly new to CFML (3 months). You mentioned the rookie use
of pound signs. How else do you identify variables?
Robert J. Polickoski
Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc.
(540) 842-6339
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM - RobertJFP
-- Original Message --
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:35:02 -0600
Rick,
Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and
folders
together... If you have a complex directory structure it means
constantly
scrolling over to the right to find the right file.
Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code.
One I saw
one demonstrated that was the data-entry wizard. It built a
form for
entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select
the form
elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You
go through
the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation
code. But the
CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation:
cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ
validate blah
/cfif
Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if
CF server
folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all.
-mk
P.S. - Studio 5 rocks.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Studio MX
David Adams wrote:
Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch
Homesite MX. In
our lives we need more simplicity not complexity.
I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime
in with
my opinion.
I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here
at
Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer
layout
that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the
files down
below.
I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it
after we
upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks.
- Rick
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
RE: Studio MX
Rick,
Yes - and it also adds a big ick factor to your code.
-mk
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:38 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Studio MX
Mark A. Kruger - CFG wrote:
CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation:
cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ
validate blah
/cfif
Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if CF server
folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all.
Hahahahha... isn't that one of the things every one of us has been
taught to avoid for performance reasons? =)
- Rick
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: Studio MX
Stephen, Actually, CF evaluates 0 and non 0 as boolean (like some other languages) - and doing it this way is actually a performance benefit. -mk -Original Message- From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:stephen;cfmaster.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:19 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX cfmode type=pedant And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) should be cfif Len(Form.Formname) GT 0 BECAUSE Len() DOES NOT RETURN A BOOLEAN! /cfmode I'll go away now.. Stephen ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Re: Studio MX
Kreig Zimmerman wrote: No. Len() is evaluated as a Boolean because in CF, True/False, Yes/No, and 1(+)/0 are all evaluated as Boolean pairs. Trust me. I use this everywhere in my own code. I used to do this a lot too, but I found that spelling it out makes the code more legible to others... which is something that all good programmers should strive for unless they are 100% positive that nobody else will ever have to deal with their code. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: Boolean Evaluation was RE: Studio MX
My background is Perl where this kind of boolean evaluation is common and I still use it extensively in my CF code. AFAIK, all boolean evaluations treat zero as false and any other numeric value as true. I use it wherever I know the values will be numeric. For example, I use this quite often: CFIF NOT qMyQuery.RecordCount No data found! CFELSE CFOUTPUT QUERY=qMyQuery ... /CFOUTPUT /CFIF I guess one argument against this format is that if you spell out the boolean condition it is self-documenting. But to me, this is a convenient shortcut and more a matter of style than anything else. Chris Lofback Sr. Web Developer TRX Integration 28051 US 19 N., Ste. C Clearwater, FL 33761 www.trxi.com -Original Message- From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:stephen;cfmaster.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:19 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX cfmode type=pedant And, really, I would use this: cfif Len(Form.Formname) should be cfif Len(Form.Formname) GT 0 BECAUSE Len() DOES NOT RETURN A BOOLEAN! /cfmode I'll go away now.. Stephen ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: Studio MX
Actually Mark you can use them on the left side of an assignment if you are dynamically creating your var names (but that doesn't happen often here) ;-) Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:12 AM Subject: RE: Studio MX Robert, Pound signs are used to output variables where you want them display or (in some cases) to concatenate and create a new variable. They are never used on the left side of an assigment statement. wrong... cfset #x# = 'blah' ...right cfset x = 'blah' wrong cfif #form.x# IS 'blah' . right. cfif Form.x IS 'blah' Some folks might use them for dynamic evaluation - to determine a variable name at run time. For example: cfif Structkeyexists(#x#) This is also unnessasary in this case because X can stand alone as in... cfif Structkeyexist(x) One case where it is sometimes acceptable is when you are building an entirely new string on the fly for dynamic evaluation. For example: cfif IsDefined(Form.checkbox_#x#) This sometimes comes into play when you have a series of form elelements generated from a query and you want access them at runtime without knowing in advance how many of them there are - or which items are in the query etc. For the most part, pound signs are unnecessary in about 95% of the cases INSIDE a CF tag (cfif Cfset etc.). Typically they are used just to se nd variable values to the output buffer ... .as in cfoutput#x#/cfoutput -mk -Original Message- From: Robert Polickoski [mailto:rpolickoski;isrd.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:42 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX I am fairly new to CFML (3 months). You mentioned the rookie use of pound signs. How else do you identify variables? Robert J. Polickoski Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc. (540) 842-6339 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM - RobertJFP -- Original Message -- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:35:02 -0600 Rick, Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and folders together... If you have a complex directory structure it means constantly scrolling over to the right to find the right file. Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code. One I saw one demonstrated that was the data-entry wizard. It built a form for entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select the form elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You go through the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation code. But the CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation: cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ validate blah /cfif Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if CF server folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all. -mk P.S. - Studio 5 rocks. -Original Message- From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot;wakeinternet.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX David Adams wrote: Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch Homesite MX. In our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime in with my opinion. I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here at Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer layout that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the files down below. I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it after we upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Re: Studio MX
Ergwrite less efficient code for the sake of possible future developers!!!??? How about keeping the more efficient code and commenting it so those future developers will understand it ;-) Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: Rick Root [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:26 AM Subject: Re: Studio MX Kreig Zimmerman wrote: No. Len() is evaluated as a Boolean because in CF, True/False, Yes/No, and 1(+)/0 are all evaluated as Boolean pairs. Trust me. I use this everywhere in my own code. I used to do this a lot too, but I found that spelling it out makes the code more legible to others... which is something that all good programmers should strive for unless they are 100% positive that nobody else will ever have to deal with their code. - Rick ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: Studio MX
Bryan Stevenson wrote:
Ergwrite less efficient code for the sake of possible future
developers!!!???
How about keeping the more efficient code and commenting it so those future
developers will understand it ;-)
For a little fun I wrote some code to test the performance difference
between CFIF X and CFIF X gt 0
I did 100,000 iterations each on my relatively slow server (566 celeron
with 256MB of RAM), running CF 5.0. I repeated the test three times.
CFIF X took 16,16, seconds
CFIF X gt 0 took 18,17,18 seconds
If your site gets 1 million page views a day (WOW!) and each of those
has 10 such evaluations... that's 10 million evaluations and a total
of 200 seconds additional processing time per day. Assuming you have
a old slow system.
I ran the same code on my desktop, which is running the CFMX Triale, has
a 2ghz processor and 1GB of RAM.
Both took 0 seconds to complete. I upped the repetition to a 10
million, and each took 14 seconds.
SO... all that being given... I'll take the readable code over
the performance increase.
- Rick
CFSETTING ENABLECFOUTPUTONLY=Yes
CFSET ITERATIONS = 10
CFSET Before = Now()
CFSET COUNTER = 0
CFLOOP FROM=0 TO=#ITERATIONS# STEP=1 INDEX=X
CFIF X
CFSET COUNTER = COUNTER + 1
/CFIF
/CFLOOP
CFSET After = Now()
CFOUTPUT#COUNTER# - Completed in #DateDiff('s',Before,After)#
seconds/CFOUTPUT
CFSET Before = Now()
CFSET COUNTER = 0
CFLOOP FROM=0 TO=#ITERATIONS# STEP=1 INDEX=X
CFIF X
CFSET COUNTER = COUNTER + 1
/CFIF
/CFLOOP
CFSET After = Now()
CFOUTPUTBR#COUNTER# - Completed in #DateDiff('s',Before,After)#
seconds/CFOUTPUT
CFSETTING ENABLECFOUTPUTONLY=No
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: Studio MX
Thanks for the input. So far, you all got me leaning toward sticking with Studio5. It would be fun to have the integrated tools of StudioMX, but if the program is slow and buggy, what's the use? I have UltraDev, but I hardly ever use it. It's not good for coding and I rarely do visual development. So I'm just left looking for a claification on this part of my question: I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Which brings up another point -- I also want to get the documentation for CFMX. What's the best way to do that? H. -Original Message- From: Owens, Howard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:49 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Studio MX I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Thanks. H. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Studio MX
I used to think it was slow and buggy, to tell you the truth. In fact, I loved the interface and the integration, but I absolutely abhorred the way that it handled on a laptop I had. Then, I bought the StudioMX and installed it on a machine with 1gb DDR RAM and I've had no problems--and am enjoying it thoroughly. Admittedly, I'm hardly the CFMX'er I want to be and I'm only a couple of months deep, however, life certainly is a lot easier this way now. My $.02 from the newbie side of the ColdFusion Fence. Russ -Original Message- From: Owens, Howard [mailto:HOwens;insidevc.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:44 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Studio MX Thanks for the input. So far, you all got me leaning toward sticking with Studio5. It would be fun to have the integrated tools of StudioMX, but if the program is slow and buggy, what's the use? I have UltraDev, but I hardly ever use it. It's not good for coding and I rarely do visual development. So I'm just left looking for a claification on this part of my question: I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Which brings up another point -- I also want to get the documentation for CFMX. What's the best way to do that? H. -Original Message- From: Owens, Howard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:49 PM To: CF-Talk Subject:Studio MX I assume there is a demo/single-license version of MX server I can download. Would my best option be to just stick with Studio5 and download the MX server? If I do this, is there some place I can get VTMs and help files and documentation for new tags? Thanks. H. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Re: Studio MX
There are THREE (3) core reasons that people whom have been in use of ColdFusion Studio have as a problem with Dreamweaver MX: 1) It is SLOOW. Slow, as in molasses-slow. Very true. Personally I don't care too much since I always used DW side by side with a text editor (HomeSite or whatever), as good as a visual tool can be I will always have the need for a fast text editor with a small footprint. I hope Homesite will survive, if not, I will move to EditPlus or UltraEdit for that kind of job 2) Text-searching. When you are doing coding, you need good and fast find/replace, and most importantly, REGEX searching. Dreamwaver MX has piss-poor support for these, eons below CF Studio's functionality. It's not the first time I hear this, I use Homesite since 1996 and DW since 1997, both almost on a daily basis. I can say for sure that the find/replace GUI in DW definitely needs some love, but it's much more powerful than what Homesite/CF Studio offer, it leaves Homesite/CF Studio in the dust in this department. First of all it's *faster* and the ability to search by specific tags is something unique, no other tool offer it (it has full support for RegExp as well). Trust me, give it another try, spend 30 minutes on it, explore all the features in DW's find/replace and you will discover a bunch of gems (hidden under the surface of a GUI that could be improved). This doesn't means you are going to mlove DW but, at least, you will be able to give a less biased opinion :-))) 3) Buggy. Need I say any more? Yes, MX is the most innovative release of DW so far and, in my opinion, the most buggy too :-) Anyway, I wasn't able to use CF 4.5 until 4.5.2 upgrade came out, and I am sure I wasn't alone :-) A few people from MM announced on the forum that a dot release is not too far... Massimo Foti Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver http://www.macromedia.com/go/team ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: Studio MX
The Macromedia online store has it at competitive prices, and has an upgrade eligibility chart, so you can see if you own any qualifying products for the upgrade discount: Store: http://dynamic.macromedia.com/bin/MM/store/US/home.jsp Upgrade chart: http://www.macromedia.com/software/studio/productinfo/upgrade/store.html Hope this helps! Vernon Viehe ColdFusion Community Manager Developer Relations Macromedia, Inc. Online diary: http://vvmx.blogspot.com/ Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida Architecting a New Internet Experience Register today at www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002 -Original Message- From: Double Down To: CF-Talk Sent: 9/12/2002 11:37 AM Subject: Studio MX Does anyone know of a good place that has studio MX for a good price? TIA DDINC __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
Re: Studio MX
Here's a listing by price: http://shopper.cnet.com/shopping/resellers/0-4773316-311-9920123-3.html?fl=0tag=st.sh.4773316-311-9920123.sort.price HTH, -- Howie Hamlin - inFusion Project Manager On-Line Data Solutions, Inc. - www.CoolFusion.com - 631-737-4668 x101 *** Please vote for iMS here: http://www.sys-con.com/coldfusion/readerschoice2002/nominationform.cfm *** inFusion Mail Server (iMS) - The Award-winning, Intelligent Mail Server Find out how iMS Stacks up to the competition: http://www.coolfusion.com/imssecomparison.cfm - Original Message - From: Double Down [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:37 PM Subject: Studio MX Does anyone know of a good place that has studio MX for a good price? TIA DDINC __ 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
Re: Studio MX
For software, I usually start with: www.bigclearance.com www.buycheapsoftware.com Don't know what they sell studio for. Regards, Bob Haroche O n P o i n t S o l u t i o n s www.OnPointSolutions.com __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
Re: Studio MX was Re: homesite+
I've been using fireworks since 4.0. I love it and have never gone back to the resource hogging photoshop. - Original Message - From: Bill Wheatley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:54 PM Subject: Studio MX was Re: homesite+ Yea but some people don't need all that bullcrap! Though I thought I didn't need it but man I got my copy and damn if I don't like fireworks and freehand. One day if MM keeps up the good work they can give photosh!t a run for its money. Bill Wheatley Senior Database Developer Macromedia Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer EDIETS.COM 954.360.9022 X159 ICQ 417645 - Original Message - From: Dave Hannum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:43 PM Subject: Re: homesite+ It also comes with Studio MX. Dave - Original Message - From: Jeffry Houser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:19 PM Subject: Re: homesite+ It is only available with Dreamweaver MX. At 01:10 PM 9/3/2002 -0400, you wrote: where would one get this nifty little creature? all I see is homesite 5 references. ..tony -- Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Web Developer? Contact me! AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773 -- My CFMX Book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072225564/instantcoldfu-20 My Books: http://www.instantcoldfusion.com My Band: http://www.farcryfly.com __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
Re: Studio MX and Homesite - Where is Homesite?
You should be able to in DWMX, just hit cntrl-f and take a look at your options there. ~Todd On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Matthew R. Small wrote: Hi all, I just bought MX Studio - where is Homesite? I need to do a site-wide find and replace. Can I do it in DWMX? Matthew Small IT Supervisor -- Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion | http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ | http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator)| http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
Re: Studio MX and Homesite - Where is Homesite?
look in the homesite+ directory on the studio MX cd ;) i had the same issues. Now you're going to have to download the VTM HELP files from the web becuase homesite+ doesnt come with CF HELP *go figure* if you need those links i can try to dig them up if vern doesnt have them handy :) Bill Wheatley Senior Database Developer Macromedia Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer EDIETS.COM 954.360.9022 X159 ICQ 417645 - Original Message - From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:42 AM Subject: Studio MX and Homesite - Where is Homesite? Hi all, I just bought MX Studio - where is Homesite? I need to do a site-wide find and replace. Can I do it in DWMX? Matthew Small IT Supervisor Showstopper National Dance Competitions 3660 Old Kings Hwy Murrells Inlet, SC 29576 843-357-1847 __ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
Re: Studio MX and Homesite - Where is Homesite?
On Monday, July 29, 2002, at 07:42 , Matthew R. Small wrote: I just bought MX Studio - where is Homesite? I need to do a site-wide find and replace. Can I do it in DWMX? Yes, DWMX will do site-wide find and replace. Note that Dreamweaver MX - part of the Studio MX bundle - contains HomeSite+. You can read the FAQs about CF Studio and HomeSite here: http://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusionstudio/productinfo/faq/ http://www.macromedia.com/software/homesite/productinfo/faq/ http://www.macromedia.com/software/homesite/productinfo/faq/dw_hs_faq.html Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood __ 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
RE: Studio MX and Homesite - Where is Homesite?
Um, duh, you're right. Thank you. Matthew Small IT Supervisor Showstopper National Dance Competitions 3660 Old Kings Hwy Murrells Inlet, SC 29576 843-357-1847 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:54 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Studio MX and Homesite - Where is Homesite? You should be able to in DWMX, just hit cntrl-f and take a look at your options there. ~Todd On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Matthew R. Small wrote: Hi all, I just bought MX Studio - where is Homesite? I need to do a site-wide find and replace. Can I do it in DWMX? Matthew Small IT Supervisor -- Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion | http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ | http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator)| http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.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
