> >> elaborate haiku? Depends on your definition of elaborate.
> >>
> >> for item in struct
> >> struct[item] equals nothing
> >> return structclear(struct)
> >>
> >> okay ... so it's redundant and it sucks
> >> -- the best I could do on short notice. :)
> >>
> >> >>s. isaac dealey
>
> > Oh come o
> On Friday, Feb 28, 2003, at 14:12 US/Pacific, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> >> Actually let's reverse that... The livedocs system in use at
> >> Macromedia
> >> was in use at Allaire in, I think 1998 (around when CF 3
> had come out
> >> I
> >> think, but perhaps CF 4).
> > Actually, I had a 'lived
> I think you're all missing the point if you think that more
> code = longer development time.
>
> Remember, for PHP, there are massive script archives out
> there with example code you can just grab and use. Even the
> function docs at php.net are collaborative... a technique
> Macromedia has
> I think you're all missing the point if you think that more
> code = longer development time.
>
> Remember, for PHP, there are massive script archives out
> there with example code you can just grab and use. Even the
> function docs at php.net are collaborative... a technique
> Macromedia ha
:) should be blast, i hear they got a great
pipe where im goin!!!
-Original Message-
From: Cantrell, Adam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
Dick.
(Adam, sitting in dry, flat Chicgo
While your point is taken, a technically correct answer often loses when it squares
off against reality. If people can make money hosting BD they will, sandbox or no, I
suspect. CFX support boosts the value a host can implement.
We were talking about the commodity side of this business. As
I don't remember us having anything before LiveDocs, but then again, I wasn't here in
the CF 3.0 days (4.01 was latest when I started).
Deb
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 5:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: PHP
Matt Robertson wrote:
> Jim wrote,
>
>>
>>and unless a free CFML-compliant application server comes
>>around that can be used in a large hosting environment
>>
>
> BD, baby. in the grand scheme could be the biggest thing to happen to cfml yet, for
> precisely the reason you state. There's a bo
Isaac (not giving up his day job) Dealey penned,
>http://mysecretbas.com ? Fishing trip? :P It produces a 404
my fingers, like bowling pins
they type, a fatal error
Friday beer beckons
--Matt--
http://foohbar.org (no 404 there!)
~~
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
> Jim wrote,
> >
> >and unless a free CFML-compliant application s
Jim wrote,
>
>and unless a free CFML-compliant application server comes
>around that can be used in a large hosting environment
>
BD, baby. in the grand scheme could be the biggest thing to happen to cfml yet, for
precisely the reason you state. There's a boatload of potential there, especially
> Luis wrote:
>>for CF, there is not a lot of free or open source code
> I've always felt there's a ton of it out there,
> personally.
> Can't count the number of times I've gone to the dev exchg
> and d/l'd three or four tools, looked over how each author
> did whatever and either a)used someone
round that can be used in a large hosting environment, you won't see CF as
big as PHP with the masses.
- Jim
- Original Message -
From: "S. Isaac Dealey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:57 PM
Su
>> elaborate haiku? Depends on your definition of elaborate.
>>
>> for item in struct
>> struct[item] equals nothing
>> return structclear(struct)
>>
>> okay ... so it's redundant and it sucks
>> -- the best I could do on short notice. :)
>>
>> >>s. isaac dealey
> Oh come on, Isaac! You've had a
> code for CF, there
> is not a lot of free or open source code for CF. This is
> one place where PHP
> or Perl have an advantage.
> Luis
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:04 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> S
> elaborate haiku? Depends on your definition of elaborate.
>
> for item in struct
> struct[item] equals nothing
> return structclear(struct)
>
> okay ... so it's redundant and it sucks
> -- the best I could do on short notice. :)
>
> >>s. isaac dealey
Oh come on, Isaac! You've had a coupla ho
elaborate haiku? Depends on your definition of elaborate.
for item in struct
struct[item] equals nothing
return structclear(struct)
okay ... so it's redundant and it sucks
-- the best I could do on short notice. :)
> Isn't that an oxymoron?
> At 04:03 PM 2/28/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>I make sur
> On Friday, Feb 28, 2003, at 14:12 US/Pacific, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> >> Actually let's reverse that... The livedocs system in use at
> >> Macromedia was in use at Allaire in, I think 1998 (around when CF 3
> had come out
> >> I
> >> think, but perhaps CF 4).
> > Actually, I had a 'livedoc' se
> I think that while it may be true that their is a lot of code
> for CF, there is not a lot of free or open source code for
> CF. This is one place where PHP or Perl have an advantage.
Almost all the code I see for CF is open and unencrypted... Most of the
.org collections (for example cflib.or
Luis wrote:
>for CF, there is not a lot of free or open source code
I've always felt there's a ton of it out there, personally.
Can't count the number of times I've gone to the dev exchg and d/l'd three or four
tools, looked over how each author did whatever and either a)used someone's freely
-
From: "Luis Lebron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
> I think that while it may be true that their is a lot of code for CF,
there
> is not a lot of
On Friday, Feb 28, 2003, at 14:12 US/Pacific, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
>> Actually let's reverse that... The livedocs system in use at
>> Macromedia
>> was in use at Allaire in, I think 1998 (around when CF 3 had come out
>> I
>> think, but perhaps CF 4).
> Actually, I had a 'livedoc' section on H
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
> I think you're all missing the point if you think that more code =
> longer development time.
>
> Remember, for PHP, there are massive script archives out there with
> example code you can just grab and use. Even
> > Remember, for PHP, there are massive script archives out there with
> > example code you can just grab and use. Even the function docs at
> > php.net are collaborative... a technique Macromedia has tried to
> > co-opt.
>
> Actually let's reverse that... The livedocs system in use at Macromedia
> I think you're all missing the point if you think that more code =
> longer development time.
>
> Remember, for PHP, there are massive script archives out there with
> example code you can just grab and use. Even the function docs at
> php.net are collaborative... a technique Macromedia has t
Isn't that an oxymoron?
At 04:03 PM 2/28/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I make sure the code for all my UDF's are elaborate haiku's. :)
>
>s. isaac dealey
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscript
Dick.
(Adam, sitting in dry, flat Chicgo)
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:50 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
>
>
> let your mind run free my friend.
.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
You mean up like awake or up like happy? And regardless I'm going to
blame
it on snorting ants, yes. :)
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:31 PM
> Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
>> Always plenty to go around. :) Who was it Ozzy who said
>> he snorted a line
> of
>> ants once?
>>
>> > if you are, you better be sharing ;
is that why u guys are up all the time?
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "S. Isaac Dealey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
> Always plenty t
> Subject: Re: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
>> On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 06:21 AM, Will Swain
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It was a very very long line. :)
>>>
>>> w
>>>
>>>
>> Well, then I can do it in a half a line, using
ctory and file manipulation
> are
> > allowed to be different and inconsistent in how they are performed. (I
> > understand the Perl TIMTOWTDI philosophy, but I see things in PHP as
> sloppy
> > rather more than anything else.)
> >
> > CF is more consistent across the
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
> Here is a snippet from my PHP book ;)
>
> This is done using an pure PHP OO abstraction layer.
>
> It is alright as far as interfaces go.
>
>
> Well, there is the developer's exchange at Macromedia.
> Also, if you're comparing PHP to CF and you used 40 lines
> of CF to
> accomplish 1 line of PHP then I imagine you probably are
> overlooking
> some of CF's capabilities. Or you've started writing
> obfuscated CF
> poetry or something.
I
if you are, you better be sharing ;)
...tony
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
> On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 06:21 AM, Will Swain
> wrote:
&g
> On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 06:21 AM, Will Swain
> wrote:
>>
>> It was a very very long line. :)
>>
>> w
>>
>>
> Well, then I can do it in a half a line, using APL ;^)>
Are we snorting lines of code now? :)
s. isaac dealey954-776-0046
new epoch htt
On Friday, Feb 28, 2003, at 11:36 US/Pacific, Barney Boisvert wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's documented any where, I'd try a searching the
> cfdocs
> for RegExp stuff.
See:
http://livedocs.macromedia.com/cfmxdocs/CFML_Reference/functions-
pt269.jsp#522
"As in ColdFusion 5, the characters \
n the cfdocs (if not, MM
needs to rethink that decision).
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:02 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
>
>
LINES OF CODE BE GONE!
Thanks for the insight -- the damn "\1" is what I needed. Is this documented anywhere
normal? I had the same problem with PHP and Perl -- took me some time to stumble over
the code (PHP -- like here -- a message board provided the answer).
So, now my custom-tag writing ha
You can use the same RE in CF:
definition = REreplaceNoCase(mycontent, "(#searchTerm#)", "\1", "all");
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 8:41
40 LINES OF CODE --
OK, maybe I can learn something here that I don't know.
Here's what I was trying to do (in English): A search engine functionality; when the
results list returned, the keyword (let's keep it to single word/phrase to simplify)
found in the results should be highlighted in so
On 2/28/03, Will Swain penned:
>It was a very very long line. :)
Yep, 40 lines each about 100 characters long (4,000 chars) in CF and
one line 25,000 characters long in PHP.
:-D
--
Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce
-
From: jon roig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 9:43 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
I think you're all missing the point if you think that more code =
longer development time.
Remember, for PHP, there are massive script archives ou
At 08:01 AM 2/28/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 06:21 AM, Will Swain wrote:
>
> >
> > It was a very very long line. :)
> >
> > w
> >
> >
>
>Well, then I can do it in a half a line, using APL ;^)>
And I can do it in half the APL line with CURL! ;-)
>
~
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 06:21 AM, Will Swain wrote:
>
> It was a very very long line. :)
>
> w
>
>
Well, then I can do it in a half a line, using APL ;^)>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?f
I think you're all missing the point if you think that more code = longer
development time.
Remember, for PHP, there are massive script archives out there with example
code you can just grab and use. Even the function docs at php.net are
collaborative... a technique Macromedia has tried to co-opt.
It was a very very long line. :)
w
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 February 2003 14:14
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
>>tag for CF, about 40 lines of code, that took ONE line of code in PHP and
Je
L PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
Having coded pretty extensively in both CF and PHP (and some ASP --
sloowww), I'd still give the crown to CF.
PHP -- as mentioned -- is a little uglier in database access/query output.
rsday, February 27, 2003 5:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
Having coded pretty extensively in both CF and PHP (and some ASP --
sloowww), I'd still give the crown to CF.
PHP -- as mentioned -- is a little uglier in database access/query output.
But then, so is an
n"
scope for PHP). The PHP answer to this is http://www.vl-srm.net, a
completely separate daemon. :)
Anyway, this post is long. Needless to say I think CF is a more complete
solution and it is only getting better, but it is silly to dismiss PHP off
hand due to the amount of almost built-in
27;ve been running on 1.4.0
followed by 1.4.1 without any issues.
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:31 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: PHP versus CF Development Speed?
>
>
> >If
>If you're running CFMX on Java 1.4, then you can make use of Java's regular
>expression facilities which are amazingly full-featured. I can't remember
>what package its in, but the main class in question is Pattern. The String
>class also has a couple RE-based methods that make use of that class
> Where PHP shines -- and cuts development time -- is it's
> Perl-like attributes: robust regex support and so on. I recently
> had to write a custom tag for CF, about 40 lines of code, that
> took ONE line of code in PHP and Perl.
If you're running CFMX on Java 1.4, then you can make use of Java'
> Having coded pretty extensively in both CF and PHP (and
> some ASP -- sloowww), I'd still give the crown to CF.
> PHP -- as mentioned -- is a little uglier in database
> access/query output. But then, so is any language compared
> to CF, at least to me.
I have yet to see db code that's as legib
Having coded pretty extensively in both CF and PHP (and some ASP -- sloowww), I'd
still give the crown to CF.
PHP -- as mentioned -- is a little uglier in database access/query output. But then,
so is any language compared to CF, at least to me.
Where PHP shines -- and cuts development time --
On Thursday, Feb 27, 2003, at 11:30 US/Pacific, Alexander Sherwood
wrote:
> At 02:28 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>> Anyone have any good case studies or articles explaining development
>> time
>> coparisons between CF and PHP? I've statistics stating ASP takes 60%
>> more
>> dev time than CF.
php is slow and evil compared to CF!
hehe i found that php fusebox3 was almost as fast as writing fb3 cf code
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander Sherwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 2:
At 02:28 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Anyone have any good case studies or articles explaining development time
>coparisons between CF and PHP? I've statistics stating ASP takes 60% more
>dev time than CF. Anyone have any numbers comparing CF to PHP?
At least 60%, I would imagine!
>***Sterlin
Anyone have any good case studies or articles explaining development time
coparisons between CF and PHP? I've statistics stating ASP takes 60% more
dev time than CF. Anyone have any numbers comparing CF to PHP?
***Sterling Financial Investment Group, Inc. (SFIG) is a member
ofNASD/MSRB/NFA/SIPC. E
59 matches
Mail list logo
