[thelist] cf vs asp

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Fri Aug 25 08:08:54 CDT 2000


> From: Isaac Forman
> 
> > peronsally, I'd say if you're coming from a 
> > pure HTML background CF is easier to pick up.

now this i disagree with... with the burning passion of a thousand suns... ok, maybe not that 
much...

but i was coming from a pure HTML background, and i had used a couple tag-based languages 
before... i've seen horrible things (note my <CFIF> as html comment in my last post)... but i 
visually parse for my script... looking for <CF...>, to me, is harder than looking for <% ... %> 
throughout the page... you may find people in organization who agree... you may find people 
who don't...

> imo, mindblowingly easier. if you're using a 
> decent text editor with
> colour-coding, then you'll have absolutely no 
> problems spotting what's CF and
> what's HTML. by default, cfstudio for example is 

same for any ASP or any other language... color-coding will definitely help anyone with either 
language... too bad i end up using notepad for everything and only fire up Notetab for more 
robust tasks... at that point, yes, looking for the tag as opposed to the color is better... but i 
can't tell you how many times i've been at a client side and had only ntoepad or simpletext with 
which to fix code...
 
> also, all CF tags begin with "CF". afaik, zero 
> HTML tags begin with "CF". if you
> have developers that can't pick up that 
> difference in their first attempt at
> coding, i'd find new developers...

i wouldn't... again, for me it's easier to see the <%..%> over the <CF..>... part of it is the 
*shape*, since i don't have to look for letters (and we all know caps are harder to read), and 
the ending %> of each tag makes it easy to find where my script blocks end as well... with CF 
it's lots of independent <CF..><CF...> tags everywhere... harder for me to see the script 'block' 
as whole... if your developers get confused, it doesn't mean they're bad, it might mean that 
they need better training to know their HTML and understand the differences between server-
side and client-side...

> look around the net and you'll find a number of 
> comparisons using cf vs asp to
> compare the code required to achieve certain 
> tasks. the cf examples are nearly
> always much smaller. if you need to build 
> powerful apps quickly, then i'd go
> with cf. allaire don't call it 'rapid application 
> development' for nothing.

the CF examples are smaller because CF has added a layer of extrapolation... ASP is closer to 
the system, and as such, requires more code to open up DB connections and such... but it 
doesn't have to run it through a CF parser everytime to create the DB calls for you... again, if 
you have in-house VB talent, this is a huge selling point... code re-use becomes very likely, and 
simple functions can be written to help those folks who aren't comfortable with the ASP script 
needed to handle some stuff...

> just thoughts from someone who's not used ASP 
> (but seen the ugly code), and
> taught themselves CF from the docs,

thoughts back from someone who's used CF (and seen the bizarre code) and taught himself 
ASP from examples...






More information about the thelist mailing list