Where ColdFusion would be tomorrow?

I'm the first to admit that sometimes(ok most times) I just ain't right...... But dude, I swear that crack you are smoking is laced with draino!! What's the point? Or what are you going to do with a "light" version? If Adobe makes a light version then people will bitch because it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the full version. And of course you will want it for free which of course Adobe can do because they don't actually pay their employees they just give them a tootsie pop and a "good job" slap upon the ass (Sean quit smiling!). Why does this weigh so upon your chest? Are you jealous that we don't have a cf light since of course there is php light & .net light & ruby on light, etc.... and we are being left out, must be a conspiracy(of course led by friggin M$). You don't have to use Adobe's version which I know is sometimes hard because you want to use the real deal but Railo is looking pretty sweet & I am either buying cf9 for my apple serve that I haven't used yet or putting Railo on it and I am a die hard adobe cf guy but hey if Railo does the job..... Now with Railo & openBD there is absolutely really no real plausible reason for a cf light. If you have to have cf light then I will send you a flashlight with a Ben sticker on it. I see only 2 real reasons for a light version: 1. To expect it to be free 2. For portability And we basically already have both now. "I'm not too sure the motivation is strong  enough to push that worthy effort forward speedily." What worthy effort? If you haven't seen or noticed the "worthy effort & motivation" that Railo is generating then you need to check it out. Ummm actually on second thought no you don't, actually you should go check out php lol. And Charlie.. Will said he's gunna jack you up! > I resisted the attemptation of voicing my opinion on the current CF > but I feel probably it's sensible to get it out of my chest.  Came > cross a thread either on digg or reddit about a week ago asking Adobe > to "Lose Weight" on CF and the like.  Today I ran into the following > URL, http://www.rebol.com/article/0381.html, I concur with the > author's key point, that is, a lot of times, less is more.  Having > said that, I should say I can understand Adobe's rationale for making > CF so BIG, in the meantime, I would venture to say, making a light > version CF shouldn't take a lot of effort considering the fact that > Source Code is ALREADY there.  Yes, I'm aware of the existence of CF > open source effort, however, I'm not too sure the motivation is strong > enough to push that worthy effort forward speedily. > > Thanks. > > Don > Chunshen Li