[thelist] cf vs asp

[aardvark]

> From: "Daniel J. Cody" <djc at five2one.org>
>
> > > - With ASP you don't get a lot of built in functionality. For
> > 
> > nnnnnnnope. Look at it the other way around. You can write your own
> > dll to do whatever you want, and call it from ASP. I know at this
> > point CF must be able to instantiate COM objects, but ASP
> > functionality is *not* reduced because ASP doesn't have things built
> > in. Recall what Adrian said; ASP is
> 
> I think adam was trying to say that CF has many of those functions you
> have to write for ASP *already* built in. Things like SMTP, POP, LDAP,
> and FTP handling to name a few. Sure, you can write a custom DLL in
> asp to do the same thing, but why re-invent the wheel?

that's all there... and you don't need a custom DLL... it just doesn't 
come in a pretty tag... but it isn't that hard, either... it may look 
daunting, but it's pretty damn easy... sure, NT itself may have less-
than-stellar FTP, for instance, but dig deal -- modify it...

> Just to clarify, you *can* write your own custom tag or COM, Java,
> CORBA, or C++ object with CF and integrate that into your application
> just as seemlessly as ASP could.

exactly...

> > closer to the underlying OS, and while that may mean things aren't
> > built in, it also means a faster path for execution and the ability
> > to get at whatever you want....
> 
> The flip side to that of course, is you inherit the flaws of the OS
> you're so closely tied into. Without getting into *that* whole issue
> though..

another point worth noting... but that's why i mentioned that if 
you're an NT shop, it's not that hard... i know people talk about how 
bad NT is, but if you check old posts, i've been able to extract 
performance from NT boxen that has surprised most and resulted 
in replies of disbelief from the others...

your web server stability is only as good as your staff's ability to 
maintain it... if you have no NT capability, but lots of *nix, then 
certainly ASP on NT is not the way to go... again, if you're an NT 
shop, it's a natural in most cases...

> Native connections like OCI(oracle native call internface) will smash
> OLE or ODBC, which I think is what adam was trying to elude to.

really?  now that is something i would like to see stats on... we 
certainly haven't had any lack of performance using OLE-DB or 
even ODBC... i doubt switching to OCI would affect it...