Let me take a moment to cloud the issue even further.  PHP totally rocks,
and Bixby ported it to the 3000 one sunny saturday afternoon about 6 or so
months ago.  It works with apache, runs almost everywhere and has great
database connectivity built into it.  While there isn't a plug in for
Image, it probably wouldn't be a big deal for someone to
write.  http://www.php.net/

that said, I'm becoming a huge fan of Python these days, and my company is
even working on some IDE's for visual Python development
(multi-platform).  While PHP is more tag based like Cold Fusion, Python
would be a full server side scripting language.

At 08:30 AM 9/13/2000, Michael Gueterman wrote:
>   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
> >



Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
949-713-3276