Michael,
Thanks for the list of CF advantages. JSP is also a "tag
based" language. I think CF has a number of pre-defined
functions/classes that are very useful. In Java you have to
buy, borrow, or write your own.
> 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.
> 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.
I think I see the difference. I was just looking for a
useful metric. It seems to me that you are looking for the
grand unified theory kind of metric. I don't want to get
into a "perfect driving out the good" kind of situation.
Time for initial development is a useful metric. Add the time
to do a typical modification and it's even better. I assume
HP3000-L readers know that there are other considerations such
as reliability, speed, type of application, etc.
- Cortlandt
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gueterman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 8:30 AM
To: Cortlandt Wilson; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Apache vs. Cold Fusion (was HPWorld
2000 On
Sunday)
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
>
|
