digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

ColdFusion 8 Launches!

adobe.com — The newest version of ColdFusion has been released.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jcyr, on 10/10/2007, -31/+21This release rocks. Before you all start to bash it, you should give it a try!
    • jocknerd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19$7500 for the enterprise edition? Ouch. At least the upgrade will cost us less than the previous version. But it sure looks like Adobe is not interested in getting new customers. Or that they've decided that their only customer base will be the government.
    • jcyr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I agree that enterprise is a bit pricey, but hey its Enterprise. Standard now has much of what was in enterprise in the past. In fact there is very little that Enterprise can do that Standard can't. The vast majority of people will be served perfectly fine by Standard edition which is about $1300 new. Basically Adobe moved a lot of enterprise features down to standard, so we are getting a lot more for our money than in past editions.
      • digger4445, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'd like to bash adobe.. with a rock.. just kidding ..
        CF8 java debugging is bit better than it was in 7.01, 7.02, I mean 7.02b ..
        and lets hope they do not to roll back the oracle datadirect driver this time ... what a pain
      • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I love CF, but the problem is that CF's pricing scheme hurts smaller companies and developers, and if people don't train on CF, they aren't going to be recommending it when they move into positions of power in large enterprises. It also stifles open source development, much of which is comprised of people working on projects in their spare time and with little or no budget.

        I think they should have gone with a three-tiered release... a free Basic version of CF 8 for non-commercial users that didn't incorporate all of the enterprise stuff from CF 7.
    • stockjones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its pricey but you get a pretty robust development platform and its the Enterprise edition eh? Ask yourself how much websphere or BEA would cost. Granted things like PHP are pretty darn competitive, free and have a very large robust support and open source community but with Coldfucion you get a very refined commercial development platform. Heck I've seen some app servers that are very expensive and all they offer is some hokey compiler and cost 10 grand or more (ahem Progress webspeed)
    • Pestilence, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1lol - cold fusion release punctuated by an exclamation mark - now that IS new
  • samfarmer, on 10/10/2007, -24/+19This really is a great release with a lot of new features for ajax, pdf, .net, exchange integration as well as server monitoring, language shortcuts, inline debugging. And thats just scratching the surface.
    • FiftyPoints, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8buried and blocked as a marketing drone
      • FiftyPoints, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Think I'm BSing? Who registers on Digg and immediately leaves a single comment like this?

        And thats just scratching the surface.

        Just look at his profile, people.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You should try evaluating the factual content of his comment rather than making wild speculations about why he posted.

          And maybe switch to a decaffeinated coffee.
    • floppyparty, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16I love how the CF8 webpage lists .Net integration as one of their 6 highlighted features. I think I'll stick with ASP.NET 2.0, which has GREAT .net integration.
    • buddhatown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I think you missed the point. The fact that I can use .net & j2ee on the same page and still be able to use the power of Coldfusion IS the point.
      • jawngee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You can use java in .NET. You can even compile java to the .net runtime, although good luck on that one.

        Either way, it's a feature that looks good on paper but the overhead would be uncomfortable for anything of scale when you consider the mechanics of making it work.
  • rip747, on 10/10/2007, -15/+12Hopefully hostmysite will have this available for their hosting plan soon.
    • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Of course they will.
      • mjenkins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There's an ongoing beta test for existing HostMySite folks to use CF8. You have to sign up for it and it's on a different server than where your normal website is hosted. I imagine that once they fully test, it won't be long until it's rolled out to existing webservers.
    • suppaibeg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Looks like they already do, were you on the cf8 beta? Link came in the email today, 2 free months and setup fee waived.
  • rclay, on 10/10/2007, -35/+14To hell with ColdFusion. Use opensource such as PHP and the like.
    • birdadderley, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2that comment is going to cost you in the long run...
    • birdadderley, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3what the hell is with this double posting thing with digg... digg down this comment...
    • Dyogenez, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Have you ever looked into ColdFusion? Or is that comment based on your love of PHP alone?
    • alexanEmpire, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2GO OPENSOURCE! GO LINUX!
    • surfing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2notepad.exe ftw!
  • djbyron, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8We knew it would be soon but what a surprise that it was this AM without warning! Headed to adobe store now...
  • tdrtdr8, on 10/10/2007, -28/+26ColdFusion is much faster and easier to develop with than PHP. Perhaps its worth the price when I can do twice the work in the same time. Not to bring down PHP as it is a very worthy language in itself.
    • jscnet, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16That's actually a misconception perpetuated by Macromedia (yes, Macromedia not Adobe) marketing team. PHP very easy to learn and IMHO much faster to develop in simply because you don't have to code w/ long arduous tags. CF pricetag makes it enormously unappealing to almost all serious developers. Just look at the #coldfusion IRCs -- there are (now) only a handful of individuals in those chats whereas there use to be hundreds --> they've all moved over to PHP. Having said all that, I like CF -- a lot in-fact -- it has some very cool functionality -- but IS NOT easier to learn, code-in, implement or use than PHP.
      • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7Coldfusion is far easier to do than PHP. It's also cheap in the business world.
        • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Only in the business world would you need to qualify a product's cheapness by the environment it is in.

          You, sir, are wrong. Besides the merits of the product itself, you ignore the comparative supply of labor for PHP versus Coldfusion.

        • jscnet, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5CF is not easier "to do" than PHP. I know because I've been "doing" both since their births. Its a total marketing hype/myth. And CF is not faster than PHP -- I've personally done the benchmarks. CF (at least 7, haven't tested 8) was significantly slower than PHP 4 and esp PHP 5. So much in-fact, I had to abort the CF benchmark because there was no-end to it completing it. PHP completed the (my) benchmark algorithm in 20 minutes -- after 60 minutes of CF still running the algo -- I aborted it. I ran the same algo in C/C++, Delphi, C#, PHP, Java and CF -- C and Delphi completed the algo in 20 Seconds, PHP 20 minutes, Java 38 seconds, C# in 35 seconds -- CF -- more than 60 minutes. Personally I'd like to see CF move away from the underlining Java engine to it's own fast-ripper C compiled engine. And please improve/evolve the scripting functionality.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2To be fair, even if you say that CF is easier to develop for than PHP, it would seem that the lion's share of open source projects are on PHP's side, pretty much negating any advantage CF has.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3A good developer needs to be proficient in multiple languages. I'd much rather have PHP/CF than ASP or JAVA (not really knocking JAVA but it seems to hate me, that and I haven't had a teacher yet who could explain how to fix my install).
        • gharding, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1PHP/CF seem like joke languages if you ever plan to do major development. Sure, you can write bigass systems in them, but you'd do much better with a .NET or Java platform.
          • takitus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think myspace is built on .net. In comparison it seems a lot of the more popular (and better functioning) sites like digg and youtube are built on other languages like php or python.
          • championchap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Umm, just a thought.. but doesn't Google run on LAMP?
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2MySpace still has a lot of CF code using the Fusebox framework.
      • Tarnum, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1CF might be faster for trivial tasks like a table with insert/update/delete.
        But for more complicated jobs you still need real programming languages - PHP, ASP.NET, Python, etc.
        And there is the problem with the portability and vendor lock.
        • brian428, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Typical unsubstantiated drivel. Also there are no less than 5 different CFML engines out there and some are open source. I'd ask you to educate yourself before you post outright crap but this is Digg after all.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Anyone have a handy irc channel of developers of php or coldfusion? I have found it very hard to find help when I have come across a problem for either of these languages. Microsoft's languages may not be the best but TechNet is a pretty damn good resource.
      • psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3ever heard of google?

        and #php is round just about all servs.....
    • Pile, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7ROFL LOL

      Faster than php?

      Dude... put down the crack pipe.
      • Antebios, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Only if you put down that Bong pipe?!
    • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Actually ASP.NET is probably the best server side scripting language out there, and that's coming from an open source/linux zealot. Second and third in line in my opinion are python and php, in no particular order. Python is incredibly powerful, and php is, well, damn near standard. I've heard plenty of gripes about php, and i don't doubt that they're true for a second, php is sort of the C of the web world, inertia has kept it on top more than anything else. That's not to say that php is BAD, i rather like it, it's familiar, pretty powerful (so long as you lay down a decent foundation for yourself), and easy to use, probably owing to its familiarity (and similarity to other C like languages like java).
      • jscnet, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1PHP is a better Server Side scripting language simply because of its platform portability (mono project -- lag aside.) ASP.NET is perhaps better for the Windows platform... but having rolled PHP out to mostly windows machines I can say that is even arguable.
  • buddhatown, on 10/10/2007, -13/+12Yeah...I download the beta, and have been quite pleased.
  • fenris6644, on 10/10/2007, -22/+13Dam nice piece of software that can make you very productive very quickly! Just keeps getting better.
  • wassim2k, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6Screenshots, or it didn't happen.
  • planetoftheweb, on 10/10/2007, -20/+9Cold what? Isn't that thing dead already? AJAX, PHP, Rails, etc., I'm not sure why we need another tech that is expensive and not open source.
    • Dyogenez, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Dead? You've been reading too many unresearched Digg articles. ColdFusion is by no means a silver bullet, but it does offers things PHP and Rails don't (and they offer things CF and others don't). It's not "another" tech that's expensive, it's the same one that's been around for 12 years (since 1995!). The same argument could be made for why we need Oracle and MSSQL when there's MySQL and Postgres out there for free. Sometimes for a project you just may need the official vendor support from Adobe, or the unique features that ColdFusion offers, and if you know about them you'll save time reinventing the wheel and doing them in another language. Whether that pays for the price of the software depends on the situation. Like I said, it's no silver bullet, and not without flaws like anything else, but no technology is (or we'd probably all be using it). It's worth checking out what's there, especially since Adobe does a good job of detailing the new features (and reiterating some of the core features in previous versions).
      • Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1> why we need Oracle and MSSQL when there's MySQL and Postgres out there for free.
        That's a damn good question. I guess Oracle has some janky scaling stuff that lets you get around an order of magnitude more requests per second without redesigning your database to use partitioning or something - I'm not sure why that's worth $100,000+ but it at least does something. As for MSSQL, all it has going for it is that it's part of the "All Microsoft Platform".
    • heartcoldfusion, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3AJAX is my favorite scripting language.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -6/+71.) No one cares.
        2.) AJAX is not a scripting language it is a technique.
        • championchap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I thought he was being ironic.
          Either I have too much faith, or you missed that.
  • jgkc, on 10/10/2007, -20/+7CF 8 is going to prove to be a very strong environment. It represents a step forward for a platform that already offered huge value to many fortune 500 companies.
    It is sad that so many tiny people think that free is the only choice.
    Lets not forget the old adage - "You get what you pay for."
    • Nainto, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Meh, that adage should be amended to "Normally you get what you pay for, with the exception of some open source projects." For example, Linux.
      • fededambri, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Yeah, with Lunix you get less.
        • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Why is it that no matter what side they're on, the people who straight out insult always get dugg when the people with genuine arguments are buried?
    • Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"You get what you pay for" is a great heuristic for used cars, but for software I prefer "all you're buying is vendor lock-in".
  • develdevil, on 10/10/2007, -13/+39cue the Adobe marketing drones posting its praises.

    I work for a firm that programs in CF and even our developers dont get that excited about a programming platform.
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Perhaps you need developers that care about their work a bit more.
    • seanmc303, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11It feels as if Adobe sent a memo out to the employees telling them to digg this up.
    • connor2k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I work for a firm that develops in CF as well, and we are all pretty stoked about this release. Of course, we also take pride in our work and enjoy coding.
    • kookiekrook, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Translated: I wear a tin foil hat to bed, and I believe there are aliens hiding in my cereal. Also any time people post opposing view points, they must be employees/marketing people of a company spending their time on digg all day to bring masses of uninformed morons to a multi billion dollar corporation to make a quick buck.
  • sampurtill, on 10/10/2007, -20/+26ColdFusion has always been known as the 80% language... I stopped using at CF7 when Adobe bought Macromedia because I realized CF was going to be rewritten -- for the fourth time. I have a good friend who manages a shop of about 160 CF developers and it works great for them, so I am happy for anyone that it works for. But ColdFusion is definitely no Django or Ruby on Rails. Open Source will prevail.
    • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4"I stopped using at CF7 when Adobe bought Macromedia"

      Aw poor thing.
    • iKnowKungFoo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Coldfusion hasn't been rewritten since version 6 when it was rebuilt from the ground up to run on top of Java. It hasn't been "rewritten" since, they've only ever added new features.
    • brian428, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It sounds like you're expecting the average Digg commenter to actually understand something about what they are bashing. You must be new here.
  • evillawngnome, on 10/10/2007, -12/+11Meh.
  • mult1task, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10PHP > ColdFusion
    • RyeBrye, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4That's like saying having only the left half of your brain is better than having only the right half of your brain. Both languages suck - hard.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What's your language of choice then?
    • annonimality, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3CF GT PHP
    • akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Ruby on Rails > PHP Cake > PHP > Cold Fusion.
      Of course only one of those cost several thousands of FRN's $$$$
    • brian428, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And only one is actually supported by an actual company. And includes tons of software that is supported by a company. Like Ultraseek(5k minimum), or DataDirect JDBC Drivers (5k just for Oracle). Or built in ability to generate PDFs and PDF forms with a few lines of code. Or a complete suite of image manipulation functions that put PHP and Ruby to shame. Or built in Flash Remoting and Flex integration. Or full clustering and failover. Or JMS event gateways. Or SMS text messaging integration. Or Exchange integration. Or full ability to call Java or .NET libraries. Or full FIPS 140 cryptographic compliance. Or any of the other gigantic list of features that CF has that are orders of magnitude more easy to use. But don't bother spending FIVE MINUTES to look up anything about the product that you are mindlessly bashing. That might require you to actually learn something, and as you demonstrate it is SO much easier to cling to your unfounded and ignorant opinion.
  • hokie47, on 10/10/2007, -13/+30I have saved so much money for my clients by telling them in come cases it might be better to go with Coldfusion over PHP or ASP.net. 10k in the business world is nothing. What business really hate is long expensive development schedules. They want the thing to work and they want it to work now.
    • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Is that 10k counting the licensing for developers seats too? Support plan come with that?

      Does it cover the redistribution, if you want to sell your web application to someone else?

      I didn't think so. +1 for .NET/Windows.
      • MrNate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, developer seat licenses are free. Support always comes in various formats (aka community, etc.), but Adobe has a per incident support plan, and they are known to make it free if it's their problem or if you whine enough. There is good support for redistribution, but the licensing fee kicks in per physical server. Also, 10k is exaggerated.
    • Antebios, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I couldn't agree more. Back in the days when I was the lone champion of CF, while people were using Classic ASP, I would sing the praises of CF. Yep, CF cost money, ASP was free, but I could do sooo much more work in less time with CF, with neat basic charting. It was a no brainer for business, and provided plenty of work for me.

      But, alas, the world has changed and .Net has taken a swipe at CF's knees and brought them bowing. I haven't touched CF in years (it's like my first girlfriend, CF will always be my first love. From Morrissey "I Know Very Well How I Got My Name" song: "You think you were my first love / You think you were my first love / But, you're wrong / You were the only one that's come and gone.") I made the switch to C#, and I haven't looked back. That's not to say that I wouldn't LOVE to move over to an OpenSource platform with as much wonderment as .Net.

      Can anyone recommend? Possibly Trolltech?
    • stockjones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There is value in having a rich development platform that makes the creation of complex web apps faster and easier.
    • surfing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"telling them in come cases" Are you in the porn biz?
  • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1wtf broken reply button?
    • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think the problem is user error.
  • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -15/+24Even this new version offers nothing that .NET doesn't (for free with Windows). It's still playing catch up.

    Unless your using a non Windows OS, CF just isn't worth the price. And if you are using Linux, why not an OSS for web development?

    Honestly, CF was great in the day. Can someone please give me a non-fanboi justification for it? Don't say how "easy" it is, because if you can't make a decent web page in .NET you shouldn't be in the business. That's how bad web sites get made.
    • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10"That's how bad web sites get made."

      With .NET? I guess you're right.
      • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8"With .NET? I guess you're right."

        Your are right. Those who think .NET is bad ARE responsible for bad web sites.

        I'm still waiting on that argument in favor of CF...
    • brockpetrie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5CF+Flash = Penis+Vagina

      Flash Remoting with ColdFusion is absolutely beautiful. It's my preferred platform mainly for this reason.
    • varekai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, ease of use is irrelevant, but a good development environment lets developers focus on innovation, not mundane coding. ColdFusion does a good job of taking the mundane repetitive work out of a lot of programming tasks. Good programmers are too expensive to have their time wasted on repetitive tasks.

      ASP.NET does have the best IDE in the industry (Visual Studio), but lacks any good MVC frameworks (no, code behind and master pages do not constitute a good framework).
      • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Speaking of IDE, CF Studio and now Dreamweaver is a total joke for CF.

        I can't think of a single repetitive task I've had to do with .NET. I'd love to hear of one. If there was such a thing, any good developer would code to avoid that.

        MVC framework. Unless you count the J2EE correlation, CF doesn't have squat. CF added objects what, 2 or 3 releases ago. Talk about a joke programming language.
        • JohnEric, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Mach-II, Model-Glue, ColdBox to name three MVC frameworks that are available for CF.

          Eclipse w/ cfeclipse for IDE
        • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Anyone can make a 3rd party MVC framework. Eclipse isn't from Adobe, nor designed for CF tags.

          So basically Adobe offers nothing themselves and is no better than the competition is what you are saying.
      • rodrigo74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If you're a decent programmer you know how to write modular, reusable code and don't have to rewrite a "MVC framework" on every single project either, just write some good, solid backbone libraries and get on to do your job. I don't even remember when it was the last time I had to look at my .NET db library code.
    • conan359, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My reason why I like CF better than other languages is that I am a CF developer, I get paid to code CF. So in turn CF feed my family, I don't get paid to code .NET so for me CF is better. After saying this if I got a job with a different language then it would be better, but I don't see that happening, from my peek into the job market in my area, PHP and .NET developers are a dime a dozen, whereas it seems there are more CF jobs then there are programmers. This is just my 2 cents.
    • DanaK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1myrannttoyou,
      Most of ColdFusions benefit is its ease of use and short development time.

      Some of the main benefits to this version 8 release:

      - PDF integration. create, modify, merge, manage bookmarking of PDF files with one cfpdf tag. Also includes livecycle form processing and some other nifty things. I guess a scenario would be for downloadable user manuals, you could customize content on the fly based on user permissions. The real gem is how few lines of code it can do this in, and how easy it is for implementation.

      There are similar tools in this version for zip files and image manipulation. Same scenario....yes anything you could do already with image magik etc but already embedded in the baseline and usable in a handful of lines of code.

      There is a lot of Ajax utilities embedded in as well, which again something you could take the time to develop yourself or download yui etc or use one line of code and have it do that for you in under a minute. Even if the javascript isn't as perfect as you like, the time benefit even for just rapid prototyping is amazing imho.
      • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Most of ColdFusions benefit is its ease of use and short development time."

        short development time = smaller, less enterprise applications (if true, then maybe CF is for you). Ease of use is questionable at best. That depends on your developer's skill and experience.

        PDF integration, who cares.

        Ajax and .NET already exists. .NET had had dynamic image manipulation for a while too.

        I just don't see what the fuss for a new version of CF is for, when no-one wets themselves for the new Visual Studio/.NET Framework

        CF had it's day, it will always be a niche technology from now on.
      • CFJN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0PDF integration, who cares? My boss, that's who. I use it all the time and it's putting dollars in my boss's pocket.
        I convinced my boss to go with CF for our eCommerce app, and he's given me two raises in six months without me even asking. I'm making money for him, and he's passing it back to me. Thanks ColdFusion!
  • JimmyTheClam, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17OK, OK, I'll try it!
    Damn, no torrents on Pirate Bay, yet!
  • harrisbradley, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14They still make coldfusion?
    • kookiekrook, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nope, they stopped making it right after you had the frontal lobotomy.
  • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -16/+4Apparently, someone was allowed to register the name 'cold fusion' as a trademark for a product that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual process of cold fusion.

    So if some physicist eventually does discover how to make actual cold fusion work, the right to use the objectively accepted name for that process will already 'belong' to someone else.

    Thus, our pathetically fascistic/corporatist society, so driven by commerce and materialism, continues to destroy all forms of truth or clarity, ruining the very language we need for communication.
    • heartcoldfusion, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You should protest our fascistic/corporatist society by stealing a sword to run yourself through with.

      How about we don't let anyone name anything because some day, in the near or distant future, some technology or process MAY have a similar name as something already.

      Also, the scripting language is called Coldfusion, the technology is called cold fusion. Please stop being ignorant.
    • falstaff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's YOU! I am an actual Water Dragon, but since you selfishly stole MY name, I had to go with this. My lawyer will be in contact.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So? Microsoft registed the name 'Windows' as a trademark for a product that has absolutely nothing to do with windows (the physical type). Apple registered the name 'Macintosh' as a trademark for a product that has absolutely nothing to do with apples. So what's your point?
    • CFJN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Cold fusion, the physical process, is impossible. So, no worries about trademarking.
  • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Adobe should focus on Flex. They have been promising a version for the .NET platform for over 3 years. Ever since the first release...

    XAML will eat Flex's lunch too, just like CF.
  • xatx2, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8coldfusion sucks d**k, lame a** technology, if you wanna call it that
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2you don't have to censor yourself. digg has a built in profanity filter. all you have to do is turn it on if you want it.
    • CFJN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Interesting how most of the CF haters' comments sound like their knuckles drag on the ground. How do you code when your knuckles are bleeding.
  • nick34, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19I wonder if myspace will benefit from this....

    Nah, who am I kidding.
    • jscnet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Well, lets see $650 x 1000 MySpace servers equals (hmmmmm....), ah got it; $650,000 to upgrade... thats not including labor.
    • DanaK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1MySpace transitioned to bluedragon and some of their stuff to .net. There is some of it running CF still but its a seriously outdated coldfusion at this point.
    • cjordan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0MySpace is written almost completely in CF (meaning BlueDragon), it's just compiled down into .Net.
  • Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19...for a minute there I thought they had solved the world's energy crisis. :(
  • Freps, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Dude on the front page looks like Bob Saget.
    • jscnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0ha! he does. that's not the sexy that's gona make me fish out $1300 per server, tell ya that right now brother.
  • cfjedimaster, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11"Even this new version offers nothing that .NET doesn't (for free with Windows). It's still playing catch up."

    The same could be said for Java or PHP. Most of these platforms do the same thing - it is in HOW they do that matters. Shoot - just write binary.

    Being serious though - consider this article which demonstrates doing CAPTCHA in VB.Net:
    http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/showtopic30913.htm

    This is one tag - one line of code - in ColdFusion. I use CF because it makes my life easier.
    • MaximegalonInfo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4The difference is that PHP and et al are free. CF is very expensive relatively speaking. Sure, if money was never a consideration, I'd buy technology differently.

      I'm quite sure you can find .NET CAPTCHA in .NET that is a simple drop in control....

      CAPTCHA? That's your argument for $1000s in licenses for CF?
      • cfjedimaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It isn't a case where money isn't a consideration. You do know that money isn't the ONLY consideration, right? If it takes you 10 hours ot build something in PHP (and I'm not saying it does, just using an example) and it takes you 1 hour in CF, then you have saved dev time right there.
      • DanaK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1CF is free to develop in. Any developer can download CF and install it as a developer version on their box and have at it for $0. Deploying it to production is where it costs money, and honestly unless you own your own company... why do you care?
    • DrBob, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Yeah. Now define a function to add two numbers together:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColdFusion#Code_example (can't put the damn tags here)

      And in PHP:

      function AddTwoNumbers(NumberOne, NumberTwo) {
      return intval(NumberOne)+intval(NumberTwo);
      }

      Much simpler, I think.
      • zirconx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Ummm you don't know what you're talking about. Your PHP example code will run in CF almost exactly as-is, just substitue Int() or Val() where you have IntVal() (I don't know exactly what IntVal() does). You don't always have to use tags in ColdFusion.
      • danielsan1701, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Or you could write it in CFSCRIPT and still have all the nifty CF tags for when you need/want them:

        CFSCRIPT
        function addThese(num,num2) {
        return num+num2;
        }
        /CFSCRIPT
      • delusr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2bad coding practice it should read val(num) + val(num2)
      • connor2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wow, you love bashing things you know nothing about it seems.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Or you could simply snag one of the MANY free CAPTCHA server controls and drop it on your page:

      http://www.codeproject.com/aspnet/CaptchaControl.asp

      Ironically, you've demonstrated one of the big weakness of Coldfusion. Creating new controls for ASP.NET is easy, and you've got the full support of the rich .NET framework to take advantage of. The link you posted shows that in only a few lines of code you can create a fully customized and rich control that didn't exist before.

      You could do this in Coldfusion as well, but writing custom tags sucks. That's probably why they feel the need to include every tag they can think of... they know CF developers aren't likely to create their own.
      • cfjedimaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You are kidding, right? How is hard to develop extensions to CF? CFLIb.org has over 1k free extensions. RIAForge.org has numerous open source CF applications. Adobe's dev exchange also has numerous CF extensions. If all you know of is Custom Tags, then you are -way- behind in your CF knowledge. Custom tags are one way to write extensions. There are also UDFs and CFCs.
        • netkid91, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2CFC's cause global warming....I KNEW COLD FUSION WAS THE CULPRIT!!!
      • brian428, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I suppose being able to use any Java library and .NET library from ColdFusion is pretty limiting. Who'd want to do that? Who'd want to have virtually any external library at their disposal in addition to using a language that lets you do most things with one line of code?

        ThinkFr33ly needs to think.
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Ditto.

      I can't believe anyone actually thinks .Net is a good or simple language. It is the most baffling thing I've ever had to program. Mystery error codes, errors when there is nothing wrong with the code.... it's a mess. Anything is a step above. If I wanted to waste my time on deciphering what the hell my program thought I said I'd code in gibberish.
      • netkid91, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wanna code in gibberish? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*****
      • CitizenBane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Mystery error codes"? "errors when there is nothing wrong with the code..."?
        Funny, I've never gotten those. Every time I've had an error, there was ALWAYS an explanation. Sure, it may have been a mystery to ME at one point in my early beginnings in .NET, but I've always found a solution.
        Maybe you should pick up an ASP.NET book and try to figure it out for yourself, instead of bitching about a language/programming framework that you obviously have no idea how to use.

        "Anything is a step above."

        Welcome to Object Oriented Programming. Sometimes stuff I need to get to is "10 steps above". Just the way I like it, too.

        (believe me, I felt the same way you did quite a few times. Only hard work and experience will fix that.)
    • rodrigo74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"...errors when there is nothing wrong with the code..."

      I call this *****. Can you provide an example?
  • SavageBlackCat, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9And the world is yet again underwhelmed by another suck ass Adobe product.
    • brockpetrie, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Run along back to your GIMP* then and leave the rest of us who actually use these products for a living to our vises.

      *or MS Paint, wouldn't surprise me
  • Pile, on 10/10/2007, -12/+259:13am Cold Fusion 8 Launches
    9:17am Server runs out of RAM
    • brian428, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Never: Pile understands what he's talking about and just stops pulling bs out of his ass.
      • ronzick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Some one needs to put this comment on a T-Shirt.
        It's so true.
  • SergeiGolos, on 10/10/2007, -13/+14as a former CF developer, all i have to say is screw Cold Fusion. and screw the tags. It's supposed to be a programing language not HTML. And just to add on to that screw lisp {} and screw scheme () as well. Have key words.. they don't need ***** around them.
    • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's not HTML. Try not using pregenerated code sometime, and write your own web app.
  • ReinMasamuri, on 10/10/2007, -10/+17CF still exists? I'm honestly surprised they're still developing this.
    This is what, their third complete rewrite? I stalled support for CF7 when my coders proved that they could do more with PHP than CF7. Now that CF8 is out, I'll have to re-evaluate this but something tells me that PHP5 already has the stuff CF8 has...
    • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Who said its a rewrite?
    • jeremiahx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7CF has only been rewritten once. From 5 (C) to 6(Java) All of the releases since 6 have been an expansion on the same codebase.
      • jscnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yeah, going from a C compiled engine to a JRUN engine --> not a good move. Performance hit, BIG TIME.
    • zirconx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9There has only been on re-write in the whole history of CF. Once again, you've shown that dig users tend to speak before they think.
    • brian428, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Most folks can't be bothered to actually understand "facts". It's much easier to think up something and then state it like it is true.
  • akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10Why would anyone use CF when there is better open source languages like Ruby on Rails for fast dev? Even PHP has lots of great frameworks to choose from now like Zend and and Cake. Why chose something that costs a hell of a lot of money that dosent do it better than the free counterparts? Honestly I doubt there are many that would choose CF even if it was free unless they already develop in it.

    What an ignorant world we live in.....put a price tag on something and some people just assume there is a benefit associated with that price. Sucker born every minute.
    • Dyogenez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually 75 out of the Fortune 100 companies are suckers by your logic.

      Seriously man, if you're suggesting that Rails is better than 100% of everything out there 100% of the time then I think the hype has gone to your head. There are cases when CF will be the best tool for the job, and there will be far more cases when it won't be. When it will be though; it may be enough to warrent the price tag. If it does, you benefit, if not go with something else. It's as simple as that.
    • varekai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There are a couple ColdFusion frameworks - Model Glue: Unity being the best.

      I develop in several languages, but I tend to choose either ColdFusion or Ruby on Rails for new projects. Each has its strengths. IMHO, keep both in your toolbox.
    • sintaxi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I develop full time in RoR and I love it but even the creator DHH will be the first to tell you IT IS NOT THE BEST SOLUTION FOR EVERYONE. I will always use open source myself but I understand there are some substantial advantages to using a proprietary system.
    • rodrigo74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Actually 75 out of the Fortune 100 companies are suckers by your logic."

      Don't buy this marketing b.s., dude. Every single platform boasts these numbers, ASP.NET, CF, PHP...in a Fortune 100 company you will always find a Joe Schmo somewhere in the basement using framework X or Y. How many of those 75% of Fortune 100 companies actually have their home page running with a .cfm extension?
      • kevin45, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2URL rewriting. Learn it, live it, love it.
        • rodrigo74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Is it asperger syndrome the problem you have with literal reading?
      • Dyogenez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I take that to mean 75 companies out of the top 100 did research on which technology they thought would be the best solution to solve their problem at hand, then payed the thousand+ for a copy of ColdFusion. With open source a "proof of concept" may very well be enough to be considered using the software, but in the pay world I believe that would mean they payed for it. I know at my work we don't dive into new technologies without a load of research -- I assume these guys got to the top for the same reason.

        I wouldn't mean that just because it's used it must be good though. That's not a valid argument at all. But for the "sucker born every minute" argument, I think it's hard to beat.

        Out of the top fortune 100 companies running CF on their homepage though, that I'm not sure. You could probably find a few on the list though: http://gotcfm.com/thelist.cfm
        • rodrigo74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pretty much every single company I've worked as a consultant might have tried and paid for CF in the last 10 years, especially around 2000 when it was a good alternative when compared to ASP and CGI, but I bet most of them have moved over to better, more robust technologies since then.
        • rodrigo74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1(digg cut my edit in the middle, continuing...)

          All I mean is that it's dumb to buy into those Fortune 100 adoption percentages, not only for CF, but for anything...when you're talking about multibillion, multinational companies you will find EVERY SINGLE technology being used by someone somewhere: CF, ASP, .NET, J2EE, PHP, you name it. Same for rdbms, programming languages, etc etc etc. These percentages are B.S. More interesting is to know which of these technologies is MOST used by a given company, its backbone...I am afraid that under those conditions the numbers for CF would drop significantly, much more than the numbers for Java and .NET.
    • DanaK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1akula,
      at 3am what kind of RoR support can you call an 800 number for?

      you post to an oss google group or msg board and hope it receives a response at some point. There is other values associated with it and thats why CF is used by so many enterprise level companies. It costs you nothing to develop CF at home, you can install the develop edition of it and have on your way. It only costs to put it in production and is something your company would foot and its really not that much at that level. Plus, why do you care how much your company spends on standing up a CF server? Does it make you lay awake at night?
  • cecplex, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9Not to be the ***** here but...

    Leaving out the whole bit about how slow ColdFusion is compared to Perl/PHP/Java/Ruby (.Net...you suck too)... Did you ever notice that ColdFusion isn't even a language as it is tagging markup? On my job I switch between PHP, Java and Perl randomly throughout the day depending on the project I'm working on. There are certain applications where certain languages work better (Using PHP on the desktop isn't a fantastic idea, cue the Java). Switching between PHP and Java is tough enough, try switching from Java to ColdFusion, it's a nightmare. It doesn't follow any basic "coding syntax" it doesn't even follow half the rules of 90% of the programming languages out there. I bet it integrates with Flash Communication Server wonderfully. FLASH, another on the way out technology. (There's a reason it's impossible to find a host that offers FCS now a days.) AJAX is much better suited and can do 90% of the things Flash can do (if not more).

    I'm getting away from the point here...but fact is, ColdFusion is a dead technology and they're merely running to catch-up. If it was developed by a company who's only focus was ColdFusion and who had no other forms of revenue, they would of been bankrupt 5 years ago. Adobe has so much money, they can just keep dumping money into the project.

    If you guys want to sit here and argue, show me something worth arguing over. Show me a site that runs half decent under a heavy load that runs ColdFusion.

    Oh...and I'm glad ColdFusion's OOP support finally caught up....riiiiight.
    • Joyrex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Erm, MySpace? All CF (running on BlueDragon, an alternative CF server to Adobe's ColdFusion), and seems to handle the enormous strain all the teenyboppers uploading their latest drunken pics and videos put on it.
      • cecplex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2MySpace? I won't even dignify this comment with an intelligent response.
      • siggyfawn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Myspace is a mess, breaks 50 times a day, every 2nd page is page not found. And that's good for CF?
      • tdrtdr8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4MySpace is in ColdFusion, poorly written and still able to handle the load. CF is definitely legit. This release is much faster than 7 and I am yet to click on a php, cf, jsp or python site and say WoW this is slow, It must be written in CF(php,jsp..). Fact of the matter is 99% of the time speed isnt an issue, and if it is CF WILL scale if you have a programmer who knows what they're doing and knows the language. And yes there are free versions as well, so price is not an issue either!
        • cecplex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3CF does not scale. That's why MySpace switched from ColdFusion to .NET (or is in the process of doing so)...Why they would switch to .NET? I have no idea, it's just about as scalable as CF is.

          By the way, MySpace handles the load, because they have a huge cloud of computing power. You can scale the smart way (clean, fast code) or the stupid way (add more servers).

          • jeremiahx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just wondering what you mean by not scaling? Hmm I run 23 CF webservers behind a load balancer... to me that is scaling... so it doesn't actually do that? oh wow I need to tell my supervisor!
        • mos6507, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Before Bluedragon they were running CF on version 5 which was hopelessly out of date and unstable. MX is about on par with Bluedragon in scalability. Both lower than .NET, but much more stable than CF5.
        • jscnet, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1At perhaps seeming like a traitor to my own (previous) comments -- CF 8 is a REAL improvement! So much so in-fact, I'm moving my site off PHP to CF8. The performance gains are just off the hook. My comments hold true however, for CF versions 6.x - 7.x -- those were just horrible. The rewrite of 8 is glorious and the new super fast DB connectors.... when you think about price $1200 bucks -- well, that equates to about 15 - 20 hours of my time -- I can write a CF app much faster due to the CF Tag syntax than I can writing Classes in PHP [15-20 hours of coding time is nothing]. CF may not be a "real" computer language, however neither is PHP (really.) CF is more of a Tag Parser than scripting language -- and as such affords one much faster times when writing backends, and in this release, much faster performance (when compared to PHP anyways) I'm writing this after testing CF 8. Its about Productivity, Performance, Stability and Security -- how fast can I create a backened, how well will it perform, is it stable and is it secure. All these things weigh-in when I create a site -- I can easily spend 15-20 hours writing some custom classes or functionality in PHP and it will be beautiful, or I can do the same thing in CF in about 1 to 2 hours... it then becomes cheap @ $1200.
    • brockpetrie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The minute you people refer to Flash as a "way-out technology" you lose all credibility.

      And you always use the same reasoning, "It's not functional, it's only a layer of prettiness." What the hell do you think end consumers are drawn to? Oh, you can send your form data and then make it fade out with AJAX? Big ***** deal. They want actually interact with the environment. They want artificial prettiness and ***** puff, otherwise it's just Microsoft Excel on the internet. And even more so, Flash video is a savior to everyone who has had to deal with RealMedia and Windows Media online for the past how many years.

      I'm fully aware that some morons are doing sites in Flash that have no business being in Flash. Don't worry, they'll suffer when only 2% of visitors stay on past 10 seconds. But for the people that are doing it right - and there are a ***** of them - they are reaping mad benefits. People love this *****, that's all there is to it.

      People have been calling Flash dead since 2000. And guess what- it's bigger than ***** ever. I'm not even an Adobe fanboy, it just grinds my gears when code monkeys bemoan about how dead it is.

      And yeah, the benchmarks for sites utilizing Flash Remoting with CF are unbeatable. Buy a decent server, and the benchmarks will reflect it.

      I code in PHP 90% of the time by the way.
      • cecplex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You're right, In my frustration I neglected to mention the huge benefits of Flash. FLV is THE online video format. I don't doubt that, but you def. hit it on the ball there, Flash is awesome when used properly. 2Advanced...FI...all great examples of this. But the days of Flash only sites are gone. Most corporate sites are done in half flash, half html now a days, with that movie animation interaction with flash and the rest of it done in HTML/Javascript. It's a wonderful mix, and we use it in every project we do.

        My post should of said, Flash as it used to be used is on the way out. I stand corrected.

        BUT, ColdFusion has no advantages over conventional languages, and it never will as far as I'm concerned.
      • belman420, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0When is my mouse wheel going to work with it?
    • Tankslap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3ColdFusion is slower than Java? ColdFusion *is* Java. The fact that you've seen slow CF sites says a lot more about who wrote that code and architected the systems than the platform itself. I also don't think that your difficulty switching between languages is an indictment of ColdFusion either. Ruby is hardly a C-like language and you don't hear people slamming that.
    • stockjones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Leaving out the whole bit about how slow ColdFusion is compared to Perl/PHP/Java/Ruby (.Net...you suck too).."

      You really dont know what you are talking about. CF can be fast, PHP can be fast .net can be fast, Ruby on Rails can be frickin slow. A lot of that is about how the database is optimized indexes etc. In some ways Ruby on Rails has limitations. Plus Ruby on Rails is riding the hype machine for a very small audience of developers.
  • dirtyhand, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15I'm a Flex/ColdFusion developer and as we speak I'm creating a presentation for my boss/clients to demonstrate why we should switch to Ruby on Rails as our Flex app backend. Coldfusion is painful to progam in.
  • cmdrNacho, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Adobe like MS are marketing companies, that try persuade the enterprise because it carries a large price tag.. it must be better. F' em both.
  • kfedx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Thank you Tim Buntel. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/

    Nothing like a "Senior Product Marketing Manager" talking up the technical aspects of the platform. If he says its "blazingly fast", it must be. I would be a little upset if I were him though, seems like the 10dpi handheld scanner they used botched his face up. On second thought, maybe he didn't want to be recognized.
    • DanaK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2well if you took the time to read up on it at all you would know it is switching itsbaseline java from 1.5 to 1.6 which completely outside the bounds of Coldfusion itself.... 1.6 is faster than 1.5 and has been noted to provide anywhere up to 20% performance increase in your apps without changing 1 line of code. So completely ignoring the Adobe aspect and their improvements to the processing, yes it is faster.
      • Zambonilli, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Is that you Tim Buntel aka DanaK? Looks like we have another high level exec posting....
        • DanaK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1if you're going to troll, at least step up and bring some A game. This response is like open mic night.... amateur.
      • jeremiahx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Tim Buntel was a respected CF developer in the CF community prior to working for Adobe... so yeah those who actually know who he is respect his opinion and know that he knows what he is talking about.
  • Kenzan, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8News Flash!
    Cold Fusion is dead, dead, dead.
    "Theatrically gripping the air) "Is this the end of Zombie Cold Fusion?" splat.
  • mariachi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Whoever thinks that PHP code is all that different from CF code is just delusional. Both mix code in with html for quicker development in the short term, but both are notoriously hard to maintain and build upon in the long term. I like both for some reasons, I dislike both for some reasons.

    Use what you like or find another job ... just quit bitchin.
    • DrBob, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Er, what? ColdFusion is markup-based, while PHP is C-derived. They're completely different. Just because they both are usually used to output HTML doesn't mean they can be considered not "all that different".
      • mariachi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3C derived? Dude, writing PHP code is nothing like writing C code, but believe what you want. Also, you probably don't know anything about CFScript, which is basically PHP.

        Regardless, having written apps in C, Java, PHP, ColdFusion and ASP I can say that coding in the last three was pretty much the same ***** experience for anything more than writing a blog.
    • cecplex, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3A "good programmer" knows that you have to separate design and logic. Clearly you don't do that and that's VERY hard to do with ColdFusion, (almost impossible actually). It's way too built into it's implementation, making it less flexible for anything other than outputting HTML, and even there it fails miserably as it doesn't interact quickly with the data sources.
      • mariachi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Actually, I do separate design and logic. In fact, I separate model, view, and controller. But I do it using Java, since it's practically impossible to do that with PHP, CF, ASP, you name it. Truth be told, Rails does a better job of it than anybody.

        Still, though, you haven't addressed my point that CF and PHP aren't that different. And that's because they really aren't that different. Personally, I'd go with PHP since it's free. But having written sites in both, I can honestly say that they're not that different to code in, and if anything, CF offers more out of the box.
      • brian428, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You have NO idea what you are talking about. It is simple to separate design and logic in CF. Please, please read something before you post crap like this, it just illustrates your ignorance.
    • beeplogic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You've obviously never seen (and probably don't know how to write) well designed PHP code. From the wikipedia page CF looks like an eyesore. PHP can be written cleanly and efficiently if you have the proper mindset and skill. I'm sure the popular frameworks prove that, even using Smarty is a start. There's a lot of badly written PHP (as well as other languages) code floating around which is what people end up seeing.
      • mariachi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not true. In fact, I'm a huge Drupal fan, and I think their PHP code is fantastic. But if you're basing you judgment of CF code off the Wikipedia page, maybe you need more experience before you weigh in on the conversation.
    • varekai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1LOL! Gotta love the stuff that comes out of religious devotion to development platforms.


      "From my vast experience gained from scanning a Wikipedia entry on your language, I conclude that I am a superior developer. Your language looks funny, so I am going to assume that I am the superior intellect. Obviously, I should write a three line comment to inform the world how lame you look next to me."


      You can have good and bad code in any language. Except java. Java developers are just lame. :P
  • whisperedlie, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5NARRATOR: In the frozen land of Adobe they were forced to eat a disappointing, bloated, and unbelievably overpriced web application framework. And there was much rejoicing.
    ALL: *under-enthused cheering* yaaaaaaaay...
    • akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Exactly my thought when i first saw this "I cannot believe CF is still around".
  • slimdizzy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6In related news, Cobol's and PASCAL's newest versions are in beta stage for your downloading pleasure. Remember max 14.4 baud connection allowed for each download.
    • jscnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3***** my brother -- I had a 300 BAUD modem at one point. It was the coolest.
  • golevel, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Perfect timing for anyone with a fetish for dying languages. (adobe fails, sorry!)

    Btw, anyone else think the guy on adobe's coldFusion landing page looks like Bob Saget?
    • jscnet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yes.
    • ajpiano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0that was the first thing i thought. that he looked like bob saget, not that i have a fetish for dying languages.
  • punkrock4life, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2$PAM ATTACK = "BURIED";
  • BonsaiKitt3n, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7I like CF for the wsdl webservices and components. Makes distributed computing easier than the others. Server-side image and video processing in 10 lines of code ftw.

    Eh sounds like a gaming forum. ZOMG PS3 ownzors joor face ur soooo stoooopie!!!!!111111
  • mikeylopez, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I love the quote, sounds exactly what a 'Adobe Senior Product Marketing Manager' would say.
  • agimat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8I'm glad you clueless gits don't like CF.

    /more work for us
  • parsa033, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I am a CF developer and I find things much easier to code in Coldfusion than any other language. Plus the it works great with flex and flash and its very easy to maintain if its coded correctly.
    • rodrigo74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Guess what, I speak Portuguese and I find it much easier to speak Portuguese than any other language.

      /duh
  • KoldFuzun, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11I've been using ColdFusion since version 2.0. Since version 7 a lot has improved and I enjoy CF more now than ever. I develop with PHP and in the past have worked with (ahem) ASP and PERL. While other languages do the job and do it well enough I find myself developing applications which are more user friendly and have a codebase which is far easier to maintain. I have also learned the basics of programming from CF, which allowed me to become fluent with other languages. It's also perked my interest in Java development.

    I won't bash any language out there because, hey, we all make money from them and they do the job we or our clients require. I prefer the Adobe platform (ColdFusion and Flex) because it allows me to develop applications quickly with limited time spent integrating open source components that don't work or require me spending two days trying to read some poorly written documentation. None of my clients have ever complained about the cost of CF, as for myself the $1300 I spent on the server has paid for itself many times over (as do the upgrades).

    All that being said, thanks Adobe for another great release and continuing to support an application server so many of us have loved for so many years.
  • sintaxi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Ruby >= Php > ColdFusion
    • 6dust, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You != smart
    • brian428, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What a well thought out argument! I'm quitting my six figure CF job and moving to PHP. Thanks for your help!
  • mahdaeng, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6People still use ColdFusion?
    • Dyogenez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2According to Indeed.com and job trends, more people use ColdFusion (or Cold Fusion) than Python or Ruby.
  • turrican, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hey.. thanks for the WARNING!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.