At 04:23 PM 2/18/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I rarely disagree with Dale but to call any product a *must* is to step over
>the line. I agree that it is a solid product and worth consideration, but I
>don't use it and don't miss it. I develop database driven pages using ODBC
>with access, FoxPro and VB5 using SQL server. I have two problems with the
>Cold Fusion approach to web applications:
>1) It is expensive (OK, all things are relative, don't start a flame here
>please... see #2)
>2) It ties my development efforts to a third party product. If I use it I am
>now at the mercy of a third party to keep up with upgrades of the OS, my
>database engine, and the source code etc... For the same reason I try to
>avoid using third party OCX's and prefer to "roll my own".
>VFP offers numerous tools for publishing to the web, including server
>components that can do things Cold Fusion can not do. As M$ releases future
>versions this will be even more prevalent, and third party vendors (in
>general) will struggle to top the functionality that is native to the M$
>I think the Cold Fusion product is excellent, but it is far from being a
>"must". Actually, and this is just to make a point, I would be much more
>likely to agree that visual interdev is " very solid, powerful and
>a must" for anyone authoring a web page. <g>
>Richard K. Marshall
>> I personally have never used ASP, but have very in-depth
>> working knowledge of Cold Fusion and use it frequently for
>> web <-> database interaction. Its very solid, powerful and
>> a must for anyone integrated a database to a web page.
>> Dale E. Reed Jr. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
>> > For the moment we implement our Web Databases
>> > using the ASP pages provided with IIS4.
>> > I am now interested if Cold Fusion offers advantages
>> > over ASP for developing Web Database applications on NT?
>> > Can anybody recommand using Cold Fusion over ASP?
> NTISP Mailing List email@example.com