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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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.
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
]
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
: 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
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
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.
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
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
[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
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
: 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
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
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:
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
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
/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
-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
]
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
]
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
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
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
56 matches
Mail list logo
