I'm not sure what you're meaning by "straight man" here,
but I'm simply saying that to state one language is "better"
then another solely by comparing the amount of time it
would take an average coder in either language to accomplish
the same task doesn't give an accurate measure of the worth
of the language as a whole (ok, talk about a 'run-on' sentence :).
I don't consider myself qualified to speak about the pro's
and con's of JSP (yet ;), but I can do so for Cold Fusion. So:
Pro's:
. Simple. CF is a "tag" based language that is very similar in
appearance to HTML. People that know HTML can quickly pick it up
and become proficient in a short amount of time.
. Powerful. The CF tags and functions that make up the language
allow for a wide variety of applications to be developed.
. Extensible. If the base language doesn't offer what you need,
you can use COM/DCOM objects that may already be available
elsewhere, or write your own in C++ or Java. These are called
'CF Custom Tags' and allow CF to take advantage of the functionality
that may have been developed for other application server products
(such as ASP). This is how we use CF to perform the gateway
functions between the 'comp.sys.hp.mpe' newsgroup and the HP3000-L
listserv. CF has the ability built-in to handle SMTP/POP3 email,
but not for NNTP. We purchased a small .dll that handled the
reading/posting/etc functions for NNTP, and incorporated it into
the CF template which does the bi-directional transfers. By
doing this, we went from writing the technical specs, writing
code, to implementation in two days. The bulk of that time was
actually spent in the spec and QA stages.
. Scalable. If you need more power than a single box can offer,
you can use the Enterprise version which includes the ClusterCats
technology to add additional servers into a cluster for horizontal
growth. This allows you to build very large/redundant environments
if necessary.
Cons:
. CF does not natively run on the e3000.
. CF can not (easily) interface with an existing host-based
application. In other words, the existing business logic
that may be present in the host-based application would need
to be replicated into the CF code. For "new" applications,
this is not an issue, but if your going to take an existing
host-based application to the web (existing rules/logic and
all), then this may be a problem.
I've personally chosen CF as my "web application" language of choice,
but there may be times when I would choose something else (for example
if the customer already has experience with another technology and it
can perform the functions they require, there would have to be a very
strong reason to move that particular application to CF instead of
what they already have).
So, I can't give you a single comparison that you can use to make
a decision as to which technology is best for a given purpose.
CF is but one of many and happens to be what I prefer. Hopefully
this response is a little clearer for you than my previous one. If
not, then let's take this discussion off-line and I can give you
more in-depth information about CF (which wouldn't really be
appropriate for the list).
Regards,
Michael L Gueterman
Easy Does It Technologies
Allaire Alliance Partner
http://www.editcorp.com
voice: (888) 858-EDIT -or- (573) 368-5478
fax: (573) 368-5479
-----Original Message-----
From: Cortlandt Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:06:12 -0600
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Apache vs. Cold Fusion (was HPWorld 2000 On
Sunday)
> "Michael Gueterman" wrote
> > I think trying to compare development times between JSP/CF/ASP/etc
> > is silly and not really useful to anyone honestly trying to
> > decide what the appropriate technology is for a particular
> > application.
> (CF = Cold Fusion, JSP = Java Server Pages, ASP = Microsoft's web
> server)
>
> Huh?
>
> So you want me to be the straight man? OK, what is THE "really
> useful" comparison
>
> - Cortlandt
>
|
