Mon Jan 7 22:37:08 2002

A. The scripting language wrapper seemed powerful in comparison to PERL/PHP.

B. It required  no additional equipment or hardware.

Unfortunately, ASP requires an enormous amount of patience for a non-coder to learn.

I don't have that patience.

I can learn Neo/CF faster and, through JSP/JavaBeans, get the job done as easily(with complex tasks) in the future.

ASP beat me. It's that simple. Global ASA files? WTF?

K.i.s.s.

Keep it simple, stupid. MS doesn't know how.

CF is easier to learn, and with the Java Neo releasing soon, the power and flex levels are comparable.

Plus, CF is so much more RAD.

What took me to email, in ASP, within 25 lines of code...

Took me 12 lines in CF.

No comparison.

And as if to add insult to injury, MS is moving to .NET which ditches VBS/ASP in favor of C#/ASP. Will VBS/ASP still be supported? Yes. Will it be expanded upon? No.
They basically keep it as an appendage and MS tells non-programmers to "fuck off" and leave ASP to those that know C#(read: Java-lite).

Screw them.

M.

Mon Jan 7 23:03:22 2002

And CF sucks scaberous bear cock.

Mon Jan 7 23:15:11 2002

M.

Mon Jan 7 23:36:04 2002

I mean, it's really not that difficult.

From IIS's supplied help

The Global.asa file is an optional file in which you can specify event scripts and declare objects that have session or application scope. It is not a content file displayed to the users; instead it stores event information and objects used globally by the application. This file must be named Global.asa and must be stored in the root directory of the application. An application can only have one Global.asa file.

JSP/JavaBeans are not easier than ASP (JSP/JavaBean development is one of the main things I do in my day job, and frankly, they stink).

JSP is fundamentally an ASP rip-off that uses Java as its language instead of any scripting language you install.  JavaBeans are fundamentally COM component rip-offs that use Java as their language instead of any language you want.

Java's database access is comparable to ADO (but IMO it feels somewhat less well put together.  ADO feels more mature -- mostly because it is; it builds on the work done for both ODBC and DAO).  In any case, neither holds a significant usability advantage over the either; ADO has more polish, that's all.

As for whether JavaBeans are easier to write than COM components... it entirely depends on the language you're writing your COM component in.  Visual Basic is easier than Java, Java is easier than C++... but C++ offers features that neither VB nor Java do.

As for Neo... I think it's a great pity that Macromedia are turning CF from something unique into "just another J2EE implementation".  Whilst (initially at least) CFML will run within Neo, either on its own (transparently using Java) or alongside JSPs, there's no guarantee that this will remain the case; I would be honestly surprised if there wasn't some effort to make a transition to plain Java.

CF is easier to learn,

For instance, a number of things I've worked on have used the CDONTS COM objects to send mail.  ColdFusion's analogue (<cfmail>) requires fewer lines of code.

But on the other hand, it didn't let me bcc nor send multiple attachments.

At which point the saving in the number of lines becomes absolutely irrelevent.  It can't do what I want.

and with the Java Neo releasing soon, the power and flex levels are comparable.

Plus, CF is so much more RAD.

What took me to email, in ASP, within 25 lines of code...

Took me 12 lines in CF.

No comparison.

And as if to add insult to injury, MS is moving to .NET which ditches VBS/ASP in favor of C#/ASP.

VBScript, VB for Applications, and VB are being elided into a single product -- VB.NET.  It will retain reasonable compatibility with all of them; whilst it certainly has some syntax differences, it still feels like VB.

ASP is being replaced with ASP.NET.  ASP.NET permits the use of any .NET language (so, for instance, I can write ASP pages in JScript, VB.NET, C#, C++, pseudo-x86 asm, Component Pascal, Eiffel, Perl, COBOL, etc., etc., etc.).

ASP.NET is fully backwards compatible with ASP.  It provides all the same objects as ASP, and existing ASP applications can be ported to ASP.NET simply by changing their extension from .asp to .aspx.

However, it provides a lot more beyond that.  Because it provides perfect backwards compatibility, you can make the transition at your own pace.

Will VBS/ASP still be supported? Yes. Will it be expanded upon? No.

They basically keep it as an appendage and MS tells non-programmers to "fuck off" and leave ASP to those that know C#(read: Java-lite).

BTW, calling C# "Java-lite" is woefully inaccurate.

For a number of reasons.

The first and foremost is that C# is nothing more than a language.  It defines a number of keywords and their meanings.  It doesn't provide any classes or types, just the syntax, and the syntax alone.

This is markedly different from Java.  As well as defining a language's syntax, Java defines a class library (all the objects you can use) and an execution environment (the VM).

C# isn't competing with Java, because C# and Java are very different things.  C# is only comparable with one particular aspect of Java.

If you meant only to compare Java-the-language to C#, the comparison is still wrong.

Both languages are derived from C++.  Hence, they have a great many capabilities common to both.  This is inevitable; they also share much with C++.  C#'s syntax is closer to that of C++ than it is to that of Java.

However, there are differences.  There are some things that the Java language has that the C# language does not, and vice versa, and some things that are done quite differently.

C# has operator overloading
C# switches can use string literals
C# (well, .NET) has no fragile classpath
C# has deterministic object cleanup
C# has delegates (essentially function pointers)
C# has true enumerations
C# has value types that can be created on the stack
C# has boxing to value types to and from objects
C# has RTTI
C# has foreach
C# has properties
C# has true multidimenstional arrays
C# has aliases (typedefs)
C# has run-time code generation (compile code on-the-fly)
C# has pointers (which are very useful for certain things)
C# has pass by reference (so you can write a generic swap function in C#.  Hurrah!)
C# has variable-length parameter lists
C# has compile-time overflow checking
C# has a few other more technical features.

OTOH
Java has checked exceptions (that is, it can let a class force a programmer to handle certain exceptions).  Checked exceptions are a somewhat contentious issue, however, and there are reasons to discourage them
Java has a means of enforcing IEEE 754 floating point arithmetic
Java has anonymous inner classes.  These would be nice in C#; delegates are usable for some of the things that anonymous inner classes would be used for, I think, but nonetheless, they can provide a certain elegance

Generally, C# has the edge over Java-the-language with regards linguistic capabilities.  There are some things that Java can do that C# cannot, but there are more that C# can do that Java cannot.

As such, calling C# "Java lite" is inaccurate.

Tue Jan 8 00:24:40 2002

where do I grab a compiler for it? I wish my school would have made VS7 available for edu purchase prior to my graduation, as it would have costed about $30

Tue Jan 8 00:35:07 2002

http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.asp?url=/msdn-files/027/000/976/msdncompositedoc.xml&frame=true

And it's jolly good fun, although once you've laid eyes on Visual Studio 7, you can't go back to other IDEs.  You just can't.

Tue Jan 8 00:38:45 2002

I got 6.

Tue Jan 8 03:35:43 2002

and does C# have the same overhead that Objective C has? i.e.  as you said: "C# has run-time code generation (compile code on-the-fly)" and from what i've read this can lead to apps that have larger overheads then a C/C++ compiled app. Granted the advantage of obj-c and C# with this is that you don't need to re-compile an app when certian libs change.

unless of course i'm an idiot who has no idea what the fuck i'm talking about. which is so possible :cheesy:

i think since my next computer will be a pc i might just for go learning programming on the mac and stick to programming on the pc. especially since i learnt programming on the pc, that is i learnt C ages ago but I was very good at it (once upon a time).

another thing, before i actually consider actually moving to coding on the PC, whats the difference between Visual C++ and C++? Or is it just IDE differences?

Tue Jan 8 03:54:25 2002

i think since my next computer will be a pc i might just for go learning programming on the mac and stick to programming on the pc. especially since i learnt programming on the pc, that is i learnt C ages ago but I was very good at it (once upon a time).

Good Idea, we should all put our heads together to configure OW's poopy-computer for him.  It will be fun :)

another thing, before i actually consider actually moving to coding on the PC, whats the difference between Visual C++ and C++? Or is it just IDE differences?

VC++ is just MS's IDE.  I like the IDE which I like infinitely more than Borland's as it is ass!

I've used MFC, but I'm getting around to understanding WTL (both are just framework wossnames within the IDE)  I'm spending time constructing Windows Apps from nothing in order to understand Windows Programming better.

Together we shall be poopy programmers :)

Tue Jan 8 03:56:27 2002

I know all this because I like knowing things that have no relevance to me, as I am not a programmer.  

Tue Jan 8 04:01:31 2002

from Jeremy Reimer posted at 10:56 pm on Jan. 7, 2002

C# is Microsoft's answer to Java, except it's much better.

I know all this because I like knowing things that have no relevance to me, as I am not a programmer.  

Bzzt.  I'm not a programmer either and I know that Java is more than just a language.  So, C# can't be an answer to anything but Java the language.

:P

Tue Jan 8 04:07:15 2002

Tue Jan 8 04:09:43 2002

It's a mindset thing.  

I try to do as little programming as possible.  Architecture, Art, Design, testing, anything to avoid programming.  

Because I don't like it.

Tue Jan 8 12:55:43 2002

I've used MFC, but I'm getting around to understanding WTL (both are just framework wossnames within the IDE)

I'm spending time constructing Windows Apps from nothing in order to understand Windows Programming better.

Tue Jan 8 16:04:52 2002

from HitScan posted at 6:55 am on Jan. 8, 2002

He also has a book on C# and one on .NET. Those should be interesting.

Tue Jan 8 22:34:24 2002

If the concept of the global.asa file confuses you, please, get a different job.

Kiss my ass.

I mean, it's really not that difficult.

From IIS's supplied help

Quote: The Global.asa file is an optional file in which you can specify event scripts and declare objects that have session or application scope. It is not a content file displayed to the users; instead it stores event information and objects used globally by the application. This file must be named Global.asa and must be stored in the root directory of the application. An application can only have one Global.asa file.

That's simple. Unfortunately, the Que book(pub 1997), that I'm reading doesn't define ASA. They just drop it on your lap during sessions.

I'm genuinely curious -- which bit of that don't you understand?

:rolleyes:

JSP/JavaBeans are not easier than ASP (JSP/JavaBean development is one of the main things I do in my day job, and frankly, they stink).

It is with NEO. Libraries of beans that can be "plug and play".

JSP is fundamentally an ASP rip-off that uses Java as its language instead of any scripting language you install.  JavaBeans are fundamentally COM component rip-offs that use Java as their language instead of any language you want.

But really, tell me how you feel about Java? :rolleyes:

Java's database access is comparable to ADO (but IMO it feels somewhat less well put together.  ADO feels more mature -- mostly because it is; it builds on the work done for both ODBC and DAO).  In any case, neither holds a significant usability advantage over the either; ADO has more polish, that's all.

CF/Neo *uses* ADO.(and ODBC)

As for whether JavaBeans are easier to write than COM components... it entirely depends on the language you're writing your COM component in.  Visual Basic is easier than Java, Java is easier than C++... but C++ offers features that neither VB nor Java do.

I never said easier to write. Easier to use. With CF, it's easier to *use*. I don't want to *write* anything I don't have to.

As for Neo... I think it's a great pity that Macromedia are turning CF from something unique into "just another J2EE implementation".  Whilst (initially at least) CFML will run within Neo, either on its own (transparently using Java) or alongside JSPs, there's no guarantee that this will remain the case; I would be honestly surprised if there wasn't some effort to make a transition to plain Java.

CF will *not* translate to NEO. The links for CF I posted in the BF list that. Neo *will always* run CFML. CFML is what keeps Neo faster than ASP or PHP or JSP.

The main complaint of CF was it's lack of horsepower(although many companies used CF. Barnes and Noble started with CF, as did ToysRus and others).

Unfortunately, reputations > reality. The attempt at integrating *stable* J2EE is an attempt at positioning NEO as a beefier compeitor to ASP.

Quote: CF is easier to learn,

CF makes some things very easy, but some things far more difficult than they ought to be.  Whilst tag-based recordset-type-things make basic manipulation easy, they make more complicated manipulation difficult or impossible.

For instance, a number of things I've worked on have used the CDONTS COM objects to send mail.  ColdFusion's analogue (<cfmail> requires fewer lines of code.

But on the other hand, it didn't let me bcc nor send multiple attachments.

I have no clue what you're talking about. At work I use CF 4.5 and I use the BCC attribute all the time.  You can even use CFMAIL_PARAM for multiple attachments.

Maybe you're talking about older CF servers.
If so, I know your pain. I had problems whilst coding my site(I'm using CFML(3) at home now).

Here are ways around it if you have older versions:

http://www.infranet.com/cf_iiMail.htm

At which point the saving in the number of lines becomes absolutely irrelevent.  It can't do what I want.

???  And apparently, so can I.

Quote: and with the Java Neo releasing soon, the power and flex levels are comparable.

If you're going to use Java you can kiss the simplicity goodbye.  JSPs and JavaBeans simply aren't as simple as plain CFML.

A. Neo will use plug n' play for JSP usage. Will also use Jbeans.

CF Studio *will* allow you to go in and alter the Java to your liking. I'm not intending on doing that. Still, Java, while harder than ASP can be saved for later, if and when I decide to get on bigger projects. Besides, once I learn Java, not only can I use it for the Web, but for apps outside the Web also. I learn VBS and that's all I can use it for.

Quote: Plus, CF is so much more RAD.

What took me to email, in ASP, within 25 lines of code...

Took me 12 lines in CF.

No comparison.  

Lines of Code is a poor means of comparing your productivity.  I've wanted, for instance, to send BCCs.  No amount of lines of code of CFML will let me do that with the cfmail object.

You are incorrect.

Moreso, lines of code *is* an excellent determinant of "productivity" in a business setting, where you have a clueless biz person pushing your buttons asking for work yesterday. You argued this to me recently, remember?

Quote: And as if to add insult to injury, MS is moving to .NET which ditches VBS/ASP in favor of C#/ASP.

Actually, this is wrong.

VBScript, VB for Applications, and VB are being elided into a single product -- VB.NET.  It will retain reasonable compatibility with all of them; whilst it certainly has some syntax differences, it still feels like VB.

ASP is being replaced with ASP.NET.  ASP.NET permits the use of any .NET language (so, for instance, I can write ASP pages in JScript, VB.NET, C#, C++, pseudo-x86 asm, Component Pascal, Eiffel, Perl, COBOL, etc., etc., etc.).

I'm just telling you what I found on MS' site. New books, work, code online will all lead to Csharp. I don't want Csharp? Too bad. VBS will disappear. It will be supported(what I said) but it won't be expanded upon.

C# is as hard(if not harder) than Java.

You can use whatever language you want in ASP.NET.  It's up to you.

BTW, calling C# "Java-lite" is woefully inaccurate.

Yes, sorry, I meant "Diet-Java".

I deleted your exposition on C#. I read it, make no mistake. I appreciate the effort to indoctrinate me(that is, if I understood half of your C# suppositions). I have no doubt that ASP.NET is a nice platform.

But I'm not ready to learn C++ yet.
Something, you missed, I guess.

M.

Wed Jan 9 13:36:01 2002

That's simple. Unfortunately, the Que book(pub 1997), that I'm reading doesn't define ASA. They just drop it on your lap during sessions.

I think you've cunningly avoided using any kind of sanity or logic here, Madan.

It is with NEO. Libraries of beans that can be "plug and play".

But really, tell me how you feel about Java? :rolleyes:

CF/Neo *uses* ADO.(and ODBC)

I never said easier to write. Easier to use. With CF, it's easier to *use*. I don't want to *write* anything I don't have to.

CF will *not* translate to NEO. The links for CF I posted in the BF list that. Neo *will always* run CFML. CFML is what keeps Neo faster than ASP or PHP or JSP.

The main complaint of CF was it's lack of horsepower(although many companies used CF. Barnes and Noble started with CF, as did ToysRus and others).

Unfortunately, reputations > reality. The attempt at integrating *stable* J2EE is an attempt at positioning NEO as a beefier compeitor to ASP.

In addition, ASP.NET permits much easier creation of web applications.

I have no clue what you're talking about. At work I use CF 4.5 and I use the BCC attribute all the time.  You can even use CFMAIL_PARAM for multiple attachments.

Maybe you're talking about older CF servers.
If so, I know your pain. I had problems whilst coding my site(I'm using CFML(3) at home now).

Here are ways around it if you have older versions:

http://www.infranet.com/cf_iiMail.htm

But you seem to miss the point.  In general, I have found that components offer greater versatility.  They might require more lines for the simple case, but they're more likely to be capable of doing what I want in the more complex case.

A. Neo will use plug n' play for JSP usage. Will also use Jbeans.

CF Studio *will* allow you to go in and alter the Java to your liking. I'm not intending on doing that. Still, Java, while harder than ASP can be saved for later, if and when I decide to get on bigger projects. Besides, once I learn Java, not only can I use it for the Web, but for apps outside the Web also. I learn VBS and that's all I can use it for.

The problem you mention is a problem with VBScript, not ASP.

Moreso, lines of code *is* an excellent determinant of "productivity" in a business setting, where you have a clueless biz person pushing your buttons asking for work yesterday. You argued this to me recently, remember?

A programmer who prefers the longer style is no more or less productive than a programmer who prefers the more compact style.  LOC would claim that he is.

I'm just telling you what I found on MS' site. New books, work, code online will all lead to Csharp. I don't want Csharp? Too bad. VBS will disappear. It will be supported(what I said) but it won't be expanded upon.

C# is as hard(if not harder) than Java.

And .NET assemblies are much, much, easier to write than EJBs.

Yes, sorry, I meant "Diet-Java".

I deleted your exposition on C#. I read it, make no mistake. I appreciate the effort to indoctrinate me(that is, if I understood half of your C# suppositions).

I'm attempting to help you avoid stating things that are completely ignorant.

C# is not competing with Java.

At all.

They are completely different.  Comparing C# to Java is fucking idiotic.  A good analogy would be comparing C (a language) to Windows (a platform).  I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to make such a comparison there, so why are you making it here?

As languages, C# is generally more capable than Java-the-language.  As platforms, C# isn't at all comparable, and it doesn't intend to be.

I have no doubt that ASP.NET is a nice platform.

But I'm not ready to learn C++ yet.
Something, you missed, I guess.

Wed Jan 9 15:22:27 2002

Perhaps it'll generate the code automagically for you (so will VS.NET to a good extent), but that's not "plug and play".

Wed Jan 9 20:43:35 2002

CF is shite and people who coo about how "productive" it is would probably very well have their needs met by FrontPage 2002.