[thelist] cf vs asp

[aardvark]

> From: Czechowski, Aaron
> 
> Cold Fusion vs Active Server Pages?

slugfest...

> nutshell, they are more or less doing the same 
> thing, right?  

yes.

> Pros and cons?  Have to pay extra for CF; ASP 
> comes built-in to PWS/IIS -
> thus increasing the apps' resale value, yes?  CF 
> is tag-based; ASP is
> script-based.  CF only really requires a good 
> knowledge of HTML, whereas you
> need to know some VBScript to dive into ASP.  
> Which is easier to learn?

- you have to learn CFML to do CF... you have to learn VBScript/JavaScript/PerlScript/etc. 
(choose one) to use ASP...
- CF runs on many platforms... so does ASP with things like ChileASP!
- don't use PWS as a real web server...
- using CF on NT, to me, is just adding another layer of extrapolation... i would just use ASP on 
NT...
- NT comes with all the pitfalls we all know with MS products... but so does every other OS...
- if you get NT server, you've got ASP... so, if you're on MSDN, do ASP...
- evolt.org runs on CF...

> Any hidden dis/advantages to either?  Server 
> performance?  Hung processes?
> Not playing well with the database?

depends on your staff... do you have VB talent in-house?  maybe ASP w/ VBScript is a better 
option... prefer tag-based scripting?  then perhaps CF...

my reason for using ASP over CF is primarily because tag-based scripting screws me up... 
and as i've mentioned before, i've seen folks who think <CFIF> is HTML... other reasons include 
it being native on NT4+, and easy for me to pick up the VBScript with all the VB developers 
falling off the trees...

ultimately, well-configured analogous sites will probably perform similarly... i've found ASP has 
better performance, but again, we're NT folks for the most part...