Hype 2 0

What do you cf developers think of this "web 2.0" chatter in our industry? Do you feel like you need to use asynchronous JavaScript and other current widgets and services just to tell people that you are "web 2.0" compliant? This seems like a silly buzzword ... do we need to embrace it to be considered to be competitive? This electronic message transmission contains information from Collegiate Funding Services, LLC or its subsidiaries or affiliates that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of only the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail @cfsloans.com immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system and any copies you may have made, electronic or otherwise.

Well I feel that using AJAX is damn fine and beats the crap out of Flash for RIA ...that said I have otherwise ignored Web 2.0 Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: bryan@electricedgesystems.com web: www.electricedgesystems.com

Tsk Tsk... The sad fact is that most developers prefer AJAX because they either can't budget something like custom Flash into their projects, or they simply don't have the time to learn Flash. AJAX doesn't hold a candle to Flash in terms of features and flex-ibility (pun intended). !k Well I feel that using AJAX is damn fine and beats the crap out of Flash for RIA ....that said I have otherwise ignored Web 2.0 Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: bryan@electricedgesystems.com web: www.electricedgesystems.com

Kevin, Some of us remember that Flash content can be a heavy download with a large application and prefer to keep things quick and clean (kinda the idea with the web in the first place). I'm not saying that Flash and Flex don't have their place. Both are exciting, rich technologies with tons of potential, and Flash Player 9 is supposed to be the fastest ever, but I also try to remember that not all the world lives on a broadband connection either. Cutter ____________ http://blog.cutterscrossing.com Kevin Aebig wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Fair enough, and even though it's extremely rare up here to not use broadband, I'm sure that's not the case all over the world. I can regularly create pretty sweet applications under 200k and I've seen quite a few static sites who's frontpage weighs in heavier than that. The CF dashboard I did came in at about 300k and that was a full 40+ formed application... it's all about usage. The problem isn't Flash, it's the lack of developers using it properly. It also doesn't help that the learning curve for Flash has definitely gotten a lot steeper with the introduction of all it's features over the past few years... and I think that traditional developers are somewhat scared of it. The easier ways to use it (Components, Frameworks, etc) weigh in pretty chubby for smaller things and you tend to lose the re-usability that components help with. Cheers, !k Kevin, Some of us remember that Flash content can be a heavy download with a large application and prefer to keep things quick and clean (kinda the idea with the web in the first place). I'm not saying that Flash and Flex don't have their place. Both are exciting, rich technologies with tons of potential, and Flash Player 9 is supposed to be the fastest ever, but I also try to remember that not all the world lives on a broadband connection either. Cutter ____________ http://blog.cutterscrossing.com Kevin Aebig wrote: > Tsk Tsk... > > The sad fact is that most developers prefer AJAX because they either can't > budget something like custom Flash into their projects, or they simply don't ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- for ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Tsk Tsk... > > The sad fact is that most developers prefer AJAX because they either can't > budget something like custom Flash into their projects, or they simply don't > have the time to learn Flash. I think that's a pretty poor generalization. AJAX using one of the more standard toolkits like prototype or dojo provides a lot of nicely degradable, cross-platform eyecandy for far less money and hassle that Flash. Assuming you want eyecandy or the _basic_ feel of a low-end VB-style desktop app... :) > AJAX doesn't hold a candle to Flash in terms of features and flex-ibility > (pun intended). Their true area of overlap is fairly minor -- the bulk of AJAX's core functionality is "invisible" requests back to the web server and very dynamic GUI effects for DOM elements in a web page. Flash is a much more comprehensive environment -- you're not going to get a javascript-based video codec for example ;) Though Flash is also quite capable of pushing XML requests back an forth too. But both have their place -- take the now common AJAX effect of new text added to a web page being highlighted in a fading yellow (or other color) that disappears over a short period of time. That's a great example of an effect that adds to the look/feel of a page _and_ that doesn't make the page useless if js is disabled. What would the equivalent Flash look like -- and how well would it degrade. Aside: I'm equally annoyed by fluff like a puff of smoke when I delete an item -- AJAX or Flash, it doesn't matter. Cute the first few times, but I just want to see it disappear. Keep in mind that while to the _user_ both an AJAX GUI and a Flash GUI are just that (GUIs), AJAX development is all about interacting with the HTML DOM while Flash is all about timelines and interactive (embedded) components. Two different models -- with some moderate amount of overlap to an end user -- that are appropriate for two VERY different kinds of development. Now Flash (esp Flex) and the new Microsoft Sparkle stuff -- _that's_ a more relevant comparison since they are both aimed at the same market. The same market that Java applets failed to make inroads in -- *applications* that are distributed through the web. -- John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint (blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com (email) ashenfelterj@transitionpoint.com

I completely agree to a lot of what you have to say. Simply put, I don't knock AJAX as I believe it has it's place and the same holds true for Flash. The sad part about Java applets was the runtime download. The idea was sound, but the implementation wasn't there. No user in there right mind will download 10MB+ for the opportunity to see and rotating cube... and even the actual useful applications didn't run exceptionally well even after they loaded. Everything has it's place... !k PS. Is it "gang up on the Flash guy" day or something? =] > Tsk Tsk... > > The sad fact is that most developers prefer AJAX because they either can't > budget something like custom Flash into their projects, or they simply don't > have the time to learn Flash. I think that's a pretty poor generalization. AJAX using one of the more standard toolkits like prototype or dojo provides a lot of nicely degradable, cross-platform eyecandy for far less money and hassle that Flash. Assuming you want eyecandy or the _basic_ feel of a low-end VB-style desktop app... :) > AJAX doesn't hold a candle to Flash in terms of features and flex-ibility > (pun intended). Their true area of overlap is fairly minor -- the bulk of AJAX's core functionality is "invisible" requests back to the web server and very dynamic GUI effects for DOM elements in a web page. Flash is a much more comprehensive environment -- you're not going to get a javascript-based video codec for example ;) Though Flash is also quite capable of pushing XML requests back an forth too. But both have their place -- take the now common AJAX effect of new text added to a web page being highlighted in a fading yellow (or other color) that disappears over a short period of time. That's a great example of an effect that adds to the look/feel of a page _and_ that doesn't make the page useless if js is disabled. What would the equivalent Flash look like -- and how well would it degrade. Aside: I'm equally annoyed by fluff like a puff of smoke when I delete an item -- AJAX or Flash, it doesn't matter. Cute the first few times, but I just want to see it disappear. Keep in mind that while to the _user_ both an AJAX GUI and a Flash GUI are just that (GUIs), AJAX development is all about interacting with the HTML DOM while Flash is all about timelines and interactive (embedded) components. Two different models -- with some moderate amount of overlap to an end user -- that are appropriate for two VERY different kinds of development. Now Flash (esp Flex) and the new Microsoft Sparkle stuff -- _that's_ a more relevant comparison since they are both aimed at the same market. The same market that Java applets failed to make inroads in -- *applications* that are distributed through the web. -- John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint (blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com (email) ashenfelterj@transitionpoint.com

Personally, I think it is way over-hyped... Or at least, it is not done well enough. Almost every time I see something very web2.0, it feels like it is not worht it. Here are requirements that I have for web2.0 to be good: 1. My back button (backspace on the keyboard) cannot act "wrong" as it does with some AJAX type deals. 2. If I start typing, FireFox should start searching the page (applcation preference)   - This is not possible in flash 3. I can scroll the page with my space bar and shift+space bar 4. Not totally required... But I love to hit SHIFT+CLICK to launch a page in a new window, so I don't lose the current page... Not available in flash type pages. Basically, I love using my keyboard... Hate using the mouse, hurts my wrist... Anything that forces me to go to the mouse it a compromise for me, that is rarely worth it. My two cents. ...................... Ben Nadel www.bennadel.com What do you cf developers think of this "web 2.0" chatter in our industry? Do you feel like you need to use asynchronous JavaScript and other current widgets and services just to tell people that you are "web 2.0" compliant? This seems like a silly buzzword ... do we need to embrace it to be considered to be competitive? This electronic message transmission contains information from Collegiate Funding Services, LLC or its subsidiaries or affiliates that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of only the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail @cfsloans.com immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system and any copies you may have made, electronic or otherwise.

I think the key is, web 2.0 really refers to buildin Apps, not websites. If you are building a website, then you really don't have much use for ajax, flash(I know, some people like pretty flash banners.... ) or flex. If you are building an online application, such as gmail, an online store etc., then these technologies make sense. In an application you have a certain degree of wanting to control what the user does and when, as such you may not want them jumping all over the place like they might on a website. As such, controls like the back button don't make sense and you can trap for it and keep them from mis-using it. =] -- Alan Rother Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX 7 Developer

I agree with Alan. Web 2.0 should maybe me just "Web Based Applications". The websites out there are already pretty good. I rarely find fault (other than design) with them, or wish they could be better. I do like AJAX for stuff though, and am looking into how to use it well. ...................... Ben Nadel www.bennadel.com I think the key is, web 2.0 really refers to buildin Apps, not websites. If you are building a website, then you really don't have much use for ajax, flash(I know, some people like pretty flash banners.... ) or flex. If you are building an online application, such as gmail, an online store etc., then these technologies make sense. In an application you have a certain degree of wanting to control what the user does and when, as such you may not want them jumping all over the place like they might on a website. As such, controls like the back button don't make sense and you can trap for it and keep them from mis-using it. =] -- Alan Rother Macromedia Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX 7 Developer

So, in regards to the back button I've been thinking that a really quality, well-done web2-type application would be one where your back button wouldn't work, but one where you'd also not ever think of using it. I mean, the application should flow such that the back button doesn't really mean anything. I believe "flow" is even the wrong word, because I think that still connotes a linear pattern. From everything I've heard about REAL web2 apps, this is entirely the wrong way to think about them. They're supposed to be a more sort of mish-mash type of application in which a linear pattern doesn't ever emerge. This makes sense if you think of true one-page desktop software type of applications. "Back" doesn't mean anything if you didn't "come from" anywhere. Of course, I could just be crazy... Your other comments are well-received though. I agree and also detest having to move my hands from keyboard to mouse. In all of my latest apps, where Ajax-type functionality has been a big player, I've attempted and succeeded for the largest part in not breaking normal browser behavior. I think this is a big deal for application usability. If you're going to let your app break normal browser behavior, it's got to be done in a manner where that behavior isn't something that would EVER be expected of a browser while in your app. --Ferg Ben Nadel wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Ken Ferguson wrote: > So, in regards to the back button I've been thinking that a really > quality, well-done web2-type application would be one where your back > button wouldn't work, but one where you'd also not ever think of using > it. I mean, the application should flow such that the back button > doesn't really mean anything. Checking: The document browser's 'Back' button should still take you back to the previous document, right? For handling application state, something like an accordion control is useful... there's really no "undo" (or "back") because everything remains inspectable, editable, reversible. (For other types of application interfaces, a History structure or "Undo" button might make sense.) Brendan Baldwin wrote, in part: > IMHO Flex is not about pushing that vision at all.  Flex is just Macromedia > trying to leverage ColdFusion to promote the adoption of Flash as an > application platform, essentially reducing the "webbiness" of the web by > closing the standards discussion for web resources as usable, mungible > things. ... "mungible"... I like that one... "webbiness of the web" comes close, though.... ;-) It would go uselessly off-topic to counter each assertion. ColdFusion successfully showed how to efficiently handle server-side processing. Flex handles the presentation layer, with similar efficiencies. (You could view PHP-coding vs CF as JS-coding vs Flex, if you'd like.) Interfaces need to be less hardwired, more approachable... I hope everyone could agree on this part...? The JavaScript-supremacist crowd will have to develop against, maintain against, and support each of the various branded renderers out there (the "MSIE" brand, the "FF/Win" brand, the "FF/Mac" brand and so on). The features they offer will be bound by the intersection of what their audience's browsers will support. This is slow progress. The Adobe Flash Player is *part* of all these browsers, by taking advantage of the browsers' established extension mechanisms. Because it's a single engine you'll see new features faster; because it's an inclusive engine you'll see wider audience faster. Webwork is indeed moving on, I agree with you there. I don't think that evolution is only in serverside technology, however... I think it's more about making servers and clients work together more smoothly, with greater expressive abilities, and in more environments. The revolution will not occur *only* on the server, imho. jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.

If you do not stay intellectually curious in the technology field, you have two choices: become a manger or watch the $$ value of your position fall or your job get off-shored.  And frankly, I think way there are way too many managers out there who are simply technology people that have *given up* on learning. The reason there is hype around "ajax" and "web 2.0" is not just so kids with blogs have something to rant about.  First of all "web 2.0" is not just about "ajax".  Its more about how you can use standards and principles learned over the past 10 years to design your products to allow a greater level of usefulness, interconnectedness, and relevance. IMHO Flex is not about pushing that vision at all.  Flex is just Macromedia trying to leverage ColdFusion to promote the adoption of Flash as an application platform, essentially reducing the "webbiness" of the web by closing the standards discussion for web resources as usable, mungible things. Flash is, granted, slick as a multimedia platform, whereas dhtml+webpages have a ways to go to compete.  But frankly, unless you're doing multimedia, there's really no reason to do websites in Flash.  I *can't stand* having to wade through Macromedia's unusable Flash interface on THEIR website to find what I'm looking for when HTML would have done the job in a much better, faster, and more usable way. Anyways sorry to rant, but ever since Macromedia bought Allaire, the product has just stopped *evolving*.  They seem to think that just because Java is underneath it now, they can leave CFML and CFScript alone.  The fact is that neither Java nor ColdFusion are competitively *agile* platforms for web development anymore when compared to Ruby's Rails, Python's Django, or even PHP5's several stellar frameworks. Why is this? Because the *language features* (not the widgets) of Ruby, Python, and PHP5 promote and allow expressions which are not easily or efficiently expressible in ColdFusion.  Unless you actually enjoy exploring these concepts you'll never actually realize what you're missing, and you will some day become a manager or your salary and your ability is going to plateau. I sincerely URGE my fellow CF developers to consider looking into all three languages as alternatives to CF and Java.  I've been doing CF for more than 8 years and switched because technology has evolved and Macromedia does not seem interested in evolving with it.  Java also does not support the language constructs of Ruby, Python, or PHP5 and is practically *less* agile than CF. In any case that's my opinion -- I'm not here to troll, I'm just trying to tell you from one human to another that CF rocked a few years ago, but the web is moving on and you're really doing yourselves and your families a disservice if you decide you don't need to move with it. --Brendan @ http://www.brendanbaldwin.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

http://publishing2.com/2006/05/12/the-solipsism-of-web-20/ "Web 2.0 entrepreneurs who read TechCrunch daily (and who power-use multiple sites with "tagging" and who subscribe to 100+ tech RSS feeds) need to occasionally turn off the PC, put on some clothes, and head down to the local Walmart to spend some time hanging out with the mainstream." ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Another bit of interest on this subject...google just released a toolkit that will allow java developers to easily create cross browser compatible AJAX based apps... http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/gettingstarted.html -- Jim Wright Wright Business Solutions wrightjim@gmail.com 919-417-2257

Absolutely not.  Now, if we have some spare time, we are planning on implmenting a flashy little gizmo on our start page just to give the customers a little 'wow factor', but that's the extent of it.  Customers want a product that works, has 99.99% uptime, fulfills all of their business needs and is easy to use.  I've never met a client who told me, "You must use floating gizmos and sortable lists asynchronously." What do you cf developers think of this "web 2.0" chatter in our industry? Do you feel like you need to use asynchronous JavaScript and other current widgets and services just to tell people that you are "web 2.0" compliant? This seems like a silly buzzword ... do we need to embrace it to be considered to be competitive?

Personally I use Ajax because I think it's very handy and does some pretty awesome stuff.  But I have a stable full time job in a corporation, so I don't really need to worry about being competitive. Oh, and by the way, it's pretty easy to get into Ajax, if you use one of the ColdFusion libraries like ajaxCFC. > What do you cf developers think of this "web 2.0" chatter in our > industry? Do you feel like you need to use asynchronous JavaScript and > other current widgets and services just to tell people that > you are "web > 2.0" compliant? This seems like a silly buzzword ... do we need to > embrace it to be considered to be competitive? This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. A1.

Hmm, I wasn't overly fussed about AJAX before reading this article, more concentrating on Flex etc. I think I might give it a closer look now. Neil ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

+1 CFAJAX http://www.indiankey.com/cfajax/ I like it better than Flex because you can just use regular old html, css and Javascript (and of course CF) and make stuff look however you want - you're not locked in to that Flex look and feel.  Also the learning curve is not too steep, all the tough js and cf is done for you. -- Josh ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- BINGO...that's why I mentioned it's SO much better than Flash (haven't used Flex yet but have investigated...AJAX still makes more sense for most RIA type interfaces IMHO...using existing skills) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: bryan@electricedgesystems.com web: www.electricedgesystems.com

You are aware that Flex is completely stylable and customizable via CSS. Oh wait, I guess you don't. You can find info on it (as well as some examples) here: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mesh/archives/2006/05/example_styling.html mike chambers mesh@adobe.com Josh Nathanson wrote: > +1 CFAJAX > http://www.indiankey.com/cfajax/ > > I like it better than Flex because you can just use regular old html, css > and Javascript (and of course CF) and make stuff look however you want - > you're not locked in to that Flex look and feel.  

Btw, that wasnt meant to sound as sarcastic as it came out. I need to be more liberal with my ;)'s mike Mike Chambers wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Can you stylize and customize it so it's not Flash? :0) -- Josh ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Heh, now that would be uselful. Ok, to be serious, Flex is of course going to be very powerful, but flash apps can have their disadvantages too. For example, I've used some where I would really like to have been able to highlight and copy some text that came up in a search - the app didn't let me do that (whether this is just a poor app design I'll leave for a Flash developer to clarify). I like to mess with JS so AJAX became a simple choice for our internal apps; the existing CF/AJAX tools are really quite uselful and I've got a lot from CFAJAX. Of course, Adobe just (sort of) released their AJAX toolkit so this will probably grow some native CF tools too. For those that want a quick overview of AJAX with CF and a list of CF/AJAX tools: http://www.fusionauthority.com/Techniques/4593-Using-AJAX-with-ColdFusion-Part-I.htm > Can you stylize and customize it so it's not Flash? :0) > > -- Josh -- CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/

Seriously though, I was not aware Flex was fully css-able, sorry to misrepresent.  Haven't been able to check out your link, something is really wrong at macromedia.com, seems like their site is down. -- Josh ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Now why would you want to go and do something stupid like that? =] !k Can you stylize and customize it so it's not Flash? :0) -- Josh ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

That's a joke son, dontch'a get it?  That boy's about as sharp as a billiard ball. -- Foghorn Leghorn ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Until this web 2. - stuff can get you found on the Internet it's crap! You-all might have sweet jobs as administrators looking for ways to make the companies users feel more at home with the desktop interface but for the rest of us, having a search engine finding your page and ranking it top ten is the way to go... Worried about your job? As a Coldfusion developer you should get into Web Development. Not Desktop development. Every day someone needs a website! -- Casey Dougall

Hi Casey. I understand your points. As a consultant, I can relate to your thoughts on rankings in SERPs but I have to disagree with the idea that high rankings has to be the main focus for developers. I would venture to say that most people on CF-Talk have full-time jobs and plan on keeping it that way. Acquiring new skills in areas such as RIA, Flash, .Net & OO is, IMO, a better route for a corporate developer. Most of their apps will be for in-house, desktop-style applications, very similar in functionality and look to the client-server applications popularized during the mid-90's. Unless you work for a small dotcom where you're a jack of all trades or you're a consultant trying to help your clients get the most ROI, I don't think SEO should be your focus. Rey... http://www.reybango.com Casey Dougall wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Unless you work for a small dotcom where you're a jack of all trades or > you're a consultant trying to help your clients get the most ROI, I > don't think SEO should be your focus. For real, SEO is *such* a "marketing" function. If you're in marketing in 2006, you *better* be a SEO expert. It's not my responsibility as a developer to worry about marketing. *So much* of Search Engine stuff is marketing. Writing copy for pages, making it "search" dense, keywords, getting reciprocal linking deals...that's all sooooo "slimy-marketing-guy". I'm not sure, beyond putting in what marketing wants, we're supposed to know about the voodoo world of alchem...I mean, SEO.

As you elaborated too Jeff, the intricacies of SEO shouldn't fall on the shoulders of developers. SEO is a whole profession in itself. I do think there needs to be some level of teamwork though by which SEO professionals convey changes that should be made in a system to get better placement in SERPS. For example, things such as ensuring good copy in ALT and TITLE attributes or SES urls, especially in dynamic pages, should be handled by both HTML page designers and developers. They're the masters of those pages and should have some control over that. Copy, on the other hand, should be the responsibility of people that *supposedly* understand marketing, brand awareness, target demographics and consumer awareness. The latter is typically not a developer's forte. Rey... Jeff Small wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> For real, SEO is *such* a "marketing" function. If you're in marketing in > 2006, you *better* be a SEO expert. It's not my responsibility as a > developer to worry about marketing. This is why we have a dedicated team of SEO professionals. I suck at writing, they do their stuff and tell us on the development side what they need to make their jobs easier. You can't do it all...  Designer hands the project to the developer who tasks the flash to another, and the SEO to another, and bam project is finished in 1/3rd the time :-) Don't get me wrong, javascript, flex, flash etc all have their places. Just not on a navigation bar, text of the page or a hyper link to name a few! Casey

Hahaha... nice quote. =] !k That's a joke son, dontch'a get it?  That boy's about as sharp as a billiard ball. -- Foghorn Leghorn ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> ....But I have a stable full time job in a > corporation, so I don't really need to worry about being competitive. Funny, I thought the same thing until I was unemployed for a year. I truly hope this is just a temporary lapse of judgment and that you really reconsider what you just said. Rey... http://www.reybango.com

Just tell them that Web 2.0 is old school and Flex is Web 3.0. Lee

" AJAX still makes more sense for most RIA type interfaces IMHO...using existing skills " Unless your existing skills are flash or don't include much js coding then flex smokes ajax. They both have problems though, flash based ones are at the mercy of microsofts typical crappy implemintations and their new plugin for it is a big flop (gee imagine that) and ajax has the issues of ppl turning js off because they are scared of getting virus' via js (hey ppl get a mac then geezo) and some anti-virus products like norton and now mcafee viewing some js as "malacious" and cause problems with it or shutting it down completely. Pick your poision but what I am finding out is that taking all that out and keeping it simple, clean and fast is still the way to go. hey brian I was just up in your neck of the woods steelhead fishing on the skagit :) ~Dave the disruptor~ ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- BINGO...that's why I mentioned it's SO much better than Flash (haven't used Flex yet but have investigated...AJAX still makes more sense for most RIA type interfaces IMHO...using existing skills) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: bryan@electricedgesystems.com web: www.electricedgesystems.com

>" AJAX still makes more sense for most RIA type interfaces IMHO...using >existing skills " > Unless your existing skills are flash or don't include much js coding then > flex smokes ajax. Well I can't comment on weather or not it smokes AJAX as I haven't played with it enough, but I'll give ya the fact I shouldn't have assumed what everyone's skills are (although it is a CF list, so CF/HTML/JS/CSS are the most likely as they are kind of core to web dev. > They both have problems though, flash based ones are at the mercy of > microsofts typical crappy implemintations and their new plugin for it is a big > flop (gee imagine that) and ajax has the issues of ppl turning js off because > they are scared of getting virus' via js (hey ppl get a mac then geezo) 1) "people" should be replaced with "programmers/developers" simply because a load of folks online couldn't spell JavaScript let alone know how/where to turn it off IMHO 2) Ummmmm...with Intel chips in Macs...how long before virus start jumping OSes on those dual boot Win/Mac machines?? ;-) > > hey brian I was just up in your neck of the woods steelhead fishing on the > skagit :) ....just a little further north and get off the mainland to the island....oh yeah...and cross the border into Canada....then yer in my neck of the woods ;-) How was the fishing? Cheers > > ~Dave the disruptor~ Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: bryan@electricedgesystems.com web: www.electricedgesystems.com

I was in the exact same situation.  I had a well-paying job at a large corporation and was "set for life".  Then, one day, a worthless co-worker had her VP husband get me fired. But, now I KNOW I'm in a set-for-life job, this time.  ;) M!ke > ....But I have a stable full time job in a corporation, so I don't > really need to worry about being competitive. Funny, I thought the same thing until I was unemployed for a year. I truly hope this is just a temporary lapse of judgment and that you really reconsider what you just said. Rey... http://www.reybango.com

> But, now I KNOW I'm in a set-for-life job, this time.  ;) Ok, explain this cause if you've got the secret juice, I want some. ;) Rey...

I hope you took legal action. <!----------------//------ andy matthews web developer certified advanced coldfusion programmer ICGLink, Inc. andy@icglink.com 615.370.1530 x737 --------------//---------> I was in the exact same situation.  I had a well-paying job at a large corporation and was "set for life".  Then, one day, a worthless co-worker had her VP husband get me fired. But, now I KNOW I'm in a set-for-life job, this time.  ;) M!ke > ....But I have a stable full time job in a corporation, so I don't > really need to worry about being competitive. Funny, I thought the same thing until I was unemployed for a year. I truly hope this is just a temporary lapse of judgment and that you really reconsider what you just said. Rey... http://www.reybango.com

I was in a similar situation at my old job. Most of the CF work had been done by a contractor and his son, he was supposed to be feeding me work he didn't, claimed I wasn't cooperating. I was laid off, I assume to avoid legal action. The contractor's son and a few more of his employees were brought in a few days afterward. The problem is proving it in court, while it's plain as day to me the CIO, who was in on it, has taken great care to bury as much as possible. Scott Stewart ColdFusion Developer/Administrator GlobalNet Services, Inc. www.gnsi.com 301-770-9610 x358 (Voice) 301-770-9611          (Fax) The information contained in this message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or any employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. I hope you took legal action. <!----------------//------ andy matthews web developer certified advanced coldfusion programmer ICGLink, Inc. andy@icglink.com 615.370.1530 x737 --------------//---------> I was in the exact same situation.  I had a well-paying job at a large corporation and was "set for life".  Then, one day, a worthless co-worker had her VP husband get me fired. But, now I KNOW I'm in a set-for-life job, this time.  ;) M!ke > ....But I have a stable full time job in a corporation, so I don't > really need to worry about being competitive. Funny, I thought the same thing until I was unemployed for a year. I truly hope this is just a temporary lapse of judgment and that you really reconsider what you just said. Rey... http://www.reybango.com

> > ....But I have a stable full time job in a > > corporation, so I don't really need to worry about being > competitive. > > Funny, I thought the same thing until I was unemployed for a year. I > truly hope this is just a temporary lapse of judgment and that you > really reconsider what you just said. Believe me, I've been there and know what it's like.  I was unemployed/underemployed for about 4 years before I got this job.  But I'm now at the local power company, and people here actually work until retirement and draw a pension.  I've been here for about 1 1/2 years, and the next youngest person on my team has been here for 6 years.  All the rest have worked here for at least 25 years. Yes, I do believe I don't really need to worry about being competitive, but at the same time I'm not sitting on my laurels ignoring the rest of the world.  I'm very active in the local IT communities, I go to tech conferences, and I try to keep up on the trends.  I do feel safe and secure at this job, but I'm not going become lazy because of it. ------------ This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. A1.

> but at the same time I'm not sitting on my laurels ignoring the rest of > the world.  I'm very active in the local IT communities, I go to tech > conferences, and I try to keep up on the trends.  I do feel safe and > secure at this job, but I'm not going become lazy because of it. Good to hear that. Don't ever take that for granted. Even big utilities don't offer security. I had friends at FPL that were laid off as well. Rey..

lol, that was kinda funny... Btw~ in case you missed the big news, Macromedia doesn't exist anymore. If you can't figure out what flex is about and how the vision is (which obviously you dont) then well, I dunno what to tell ya but it ain't rocket science. And it's not about ADOBE using cfm to get people to use flash, hell it's probably more about the getting the flash people to use cfm. Actually isn't even the grand thief of them all (microsoft) coming out with thier own version of flex type apps for the desktops? I see flex as one of the driving visions to moving the web along, php sure as hell wasnt doing that. And whats this crap about how it stopped evolving after Allaire? Seriously, put the crack pipe down and walk away. You remind me of Micha, if you think the others are so great then... shoo fly.... You may have experience but this is an almost laughable joke and I have a hard time talking about web 2.0 with someone who thinks photoshop is used for gradiant-fills, rounded corners and drop-shadows, the next thing you are gunna say is that photoshop hasn't evolved since 1990 and it has no place in web 2.0. Least you are on a mac :) ~Dave the disruptor~ If you do not stay intellectually curious in the technology field, you have two choices: become a manger or watch the $$ value of your position fall or your job get off-shored. And frankly, I think way there are way too many managers out there who are simply technology people that have *given up* on learning. The reason there is hype around "ajax" and "web 2.0" is not just so kids with blogs have something to rant about. First of all "web 2.0" is not just about "ajax". Its more about how you can use standards and principles learned over the past 10 years to design your products to allow a greater level of usefulness, interconnectedness, and relevance. IMHO Flex is not about pushing that vision at all. Flex is just Macromedia trying to leverage ColdFusion to promote the adoption of Flash as an application platform, essentially reducing the "webbiness" of the web by closing the standards discussion for web resources as usable, mungible things. Flash is, granted, slick as a multimedia platform, whereas dhtml+webpages have a ways to go to compete. But frankly, unless you're doing multimedia, there's really no reason to do websites in Flash. I *can't stand* having to wade through Macromedia's unusable Flash interface on THEIR website to find what I'm looking for when HTML would have done the job in a much better, faster, and more usable way. Anyways sorry to rant, but ever since Macromedia bought Allaire, the product has just stopped *evolving*. They seem to think that just because Java is underneath it now, they can leave CFML and CFScript alone. The fact is that neither Java nor ColdFusion are competitively *agile* platforms for web development anymore when compared to Ruby's Rails, Python's Django, or even PHP5's several stellar frameworks. Why is this? Because the *language features* (not the widgets) of Ruby, Python, and PHP5 promote and allow expressions which are not easily or efficiently expressible in ColdFusion. Unless you actually enjoy exploring these concepts you'll never actually realize what you're missing, and you will some day become a manager or your salary and your ability is going to plateau. I sincerely URGE my fellow CF developers to consider looking into all three languages as alternatives to CF and Java. I've been doing CF for more than 8 years and switched because technology has evolved and Macromedia does not seem interested in evolving with it. Java also does not support the language constructs of Ruby, Python, or PHP5 and is practically *less* agile than CF. In any case that's my opinion -- I'm not here to troll, I'm just trying to tell you from one human to another that CF rocked a few years ago, but the web is moving on and you're really doing yourselves and your families a disservice if you decide you don't need to move with it. --Brendan @ http://www.brendanbaldwin.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Nothing I could do.  Indiana is an "at-will" state.  You can get fired for any reason without any explanation as long as it doesn't violate any affirmative action laws. M!ke I hope you took legal action.

bleah! Sorry about that. <!----------------//------ andy matthews web developer certified advanced coldfusion programmer ICGLink, Inc. andy@icglink.com 615.370.1530 x737 --------------//---------> Nothing I could do.  Indiana is an "at-will" state.  You can get fired for any reason without any explanation as long as it doesn't violate any affirmative action laws. M!ke I hope you took legal action.

A lot of people don't know js Bryan ;) It's easier for me to do flash and actionscript then js, so in that case flex is way more attractive to me, it will also run on mobile phones where I don't belive ajax will yet which is one of the attractive qualities of it. And in theory you could run it off your desktop and not be in a browser at all. " JavaScript let alone know how/where to turn it off " You might be suprised and 2 of the most popular anti-virus products available already shut down some js scripting, I have even seen it shut down the js that cfm creates for cfform validation. For example if you are running norton you can look at source code and you will see "norton" errors where it's stopping the js from running. Js is kinda like cookies, where someone says its bad and everyone freaks out about it and turns it off or cleans them out. Which is just an accumulated action that non techies get from running windows. But then again we have had now a security warning about flash and a lot of people block flash because of the over use of flash popup ads. But I could at least run a flex app on my pda cell. " Ummmmm...with Intel chips in Macs...how long before virus start jumping OSes on those dual boot Win/Mac machines?? ;-)" Who knows but while windows people try to rely on that phrase what they forget is that even if you do get a virus on a mac that it doesn't destroy like on a windows machine because of the secured nature of unix. Hell os x has one a few weeks ago, curtesy of AOL's AIM, so if you were dumb enough to accept a message on AIM from a stranger and then download the file they sent you, then open it up then give it permission to run or install, then you would have to go through all the trouble of doing a 1 second spotlight search and moving the virus to the trash and deleting it. Now if that was windows you'd be reformatting and installing. And also all these "new" os x security warning are kinda funny since they originate at either McAffee or Norton... hummmmm As far as getting them on the windows version of a dual boot intel mac, well doesn't that just go to show you right there that you can have both OS's on same puter connected to same internet line, doing the same things and one is still going to get viruses like crazy and the other wont. And say that if you are on a dual boot mac and get a virus on the winblows side it won't migrate or affect the OS X partition at all. Damn how much more evidence do ya need? Downside to an intel mac is that installing cfm is a PITA on it, can't wait for Sean to get his new Macbook pro and get-r-done 4 us :)~ I think we were only like 30 miles from Vancouver, so it wasn't to far. The fishing was ok going back up in a few months for Salmon whoo hoo.... ~Dave the disruptor~ >" AJAX still makes more sense for most RIA type interfaces IMHO...using >existing skills " > Unless your existing skills are flash or don't include much js coding then > flex smokes ajax. Well I can't comment on weather or not it smokes AJAX as I haven't played with it enough, but I'll give ya the fact I shouldn't have assumed what everyone's skills are (although it is a CF list, so CF/HTML/JS/CSS are the most likely as they are kind of core to web dev. > They both have problems though, flash based ones are at the mercy of > microsofts typical crappy implemintations and their new plugin for it is a big > flop (gee imagine that) and ajax has the issues of ppl turning js off because > they are scared of getting virus' via js (hey ppl get a mac then geezo) 1) "people" should be replaced with "programmers/developers" simply because a load of folks online couldn't spell JavaScript let alone know how/where to turn it off IMHO 2) Ummmmm...with Intel chips in Macs...how long before virus start jumping OSes on those dual boot Win/Mac machines?? ;-) > > hey brian I was just up in your neck of the woods steelhead fishing on the > skagit :) .....just a little further north and get off the mainland to the island....oh yeah...and cross the border into Canada....then yer in my neck of the woods ;-) How was the fishing? Cheers > > ~Dave the disruptor~ Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: bryan@electricedgesystems.com web: www.electricedgesystems.com

> If you do not stay intellectually curious in the technology > field, you have two choices: become a manger or watch the $$ > value of your position fall or your job get off-shored.  And > frankly, I think way there are way too many managers out > there who are simply technology people that have *given up* > on learning. This is absolutely correct, but most people can't learn new things forever - it's a lot of work! So, for most developers there is a natural progression from active development to project management, or business process management, or enterprise architecture, over a career. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- This, on the other hand, is so wrong I don't even know where to start. The "vision" of "standards and principles" you mention is a band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is an HTML application. Sure, you can improve HTML applications by using CSS, XHTML, JavaScript, AJAX, etc, etc, but HTML is a fundamentally unsuitable technology for application interfaces. The switch to HTML applications took us ten or fifteen years back in interface functionality, to a time when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. AJAX allows you to apply the illusion of an event-based model onto the linear interface of run-of-the-mill HTML applications, which in case you've forgotten are just a SERIES OF GENERATED DOCUMENTS! This is one step removed from me printing out Windows screens and mailing them to you, so you can mail me a response saying "click on this button for me and send me the result!" Flex is the natural response to the last ten years of total suckiness that have characterized web applications - it is an attempt to apply the event-driven model that we use for desktop and client/server applications to web applications. Further, it's an attempt to do this without sacrificing one of the primary values of web applications - platform-neutrality (admittedly, it's not quite there yet, but then again most AJAX apps won't run on my cell phone, either). AJAX is an illusion of an event model, and Flex is the real thing. So, yes, to the extent that "webbiness" means "suckiness", Flex should reduce the "webbiness" of the web. Flex is about applications. HTML is not, no matter how much we try to make it so. As for Macromedia's own implementation on their site, I don't care much for it either. But that says less about the usefulness of Flex for pure applications than it does about whether their site should be treated as an application or as a bunch of documents. HTML is great for documents, not so great for applications, and the reverse is true about Flash and Flex. Oh, and finally, two notes - Flex is completely independent from CF (most Flex developers are not CF developers), and "mungible" isn't really a word. http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=mungibl e http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mungible To me, the most annoying characteristic of "web 2.0" is the perceived need to create new labels for everything when existing ones already exist. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- And yet, the vast majority of corporate web development is done in Java. You don't see many Fortune 500s betting their line-of-business applications on Rails or Django. So, given a choice between web development in Java versus CF, I'd choose CF hands-down. And that's the only choice that matters for the vast majority of web app developers. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information!

Ditto that Dave.  Good luck trying to convince a manager or muckety-muck to use Django or Rails.  Hell, it took me 4 months of cajoling to get my boss to approve the use of CF for our new web store.  He was hell bent on dropping thousands for IBM WebSphere for our little 6000 visits-a-day site. Luckily I convinced him otherwise, and we are going with CFWebstore (with heavy customization) for $300. A lot of management types see CF as some weird bleeding edge novelty language; that is only starting to change with sites like MySpace and Bank of America using it. -- Josh ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Ditto that Dave.  Good luck trying to convince a manager or muckety-muck to > use Django or Rails.  Hell, it took me 4 months of cajoling to get my boss > to approve the use of CF for our new web store.  He was hell bent on > dropping thousands for IBM WebSphere for our little 6000 visits-a-day site. > Luckily I convinced him otherwise, and we are going with CFWebstore (with > heavy customization) for $300. Your example actually is a great example of how it can be hard to put ANY of the alternatives to the .NET/Java duopoly. Four months of cajoling may have been just as effective as pushing Python (Django is a _framework_), Ruby (ditto), Perl, PHP, or even Seapine (Smalltalk -- dabbledb is latest darling of web20 world) Aside -- Django and Rails are _frameworks_... you may have also been cajoling your boss for Fusebox or ModelGlue or somesuch, but let's compare apples and apples :) > > A lot of management types see CF as some weird bleeding edge novelty > language; that is only starting to change with sites like MySpace and Bank > of America using it. Insert anything other than .NET and Java in that sentence and it's just as true :) There are a number of companies using Ruby (and Rails) internally and externally with names you may recognize. Ruby in many cases is replacing/supplanting Perl as the simple glue to hold disparate systems together (just as Python glues Google together). One specific example of a decent sized company using Rails is Fairfield Language Technologies, which is better known to those of you who do a lot of airline travel as RosettaStone -- the foreign language software folks. All of their online sales (~$100k/day) are running on Rails. Oh, and I know about a couple of Ruby projects @ DARPA. The "what big companies are using CF" discussion comes up on a regular basis on this list and frankly the marquee list isn't all that long, but we all know lots of companies use it -- maybe not for everything, but it's used. Python with Django and Ruby on Rails both have their place -- but neither is a solution to every situation. Ruby doesn't "cluster" like a J2EE server for example. It's hard deploy on Windows, especially with IIS. It prefers MySQL. Django prefers Postgres and is even _harder_ to run on Windows from what I've seen. There's plenty of other issues that can be raised for specific implementations. But I'd personally maintain that for many pitches for building web apps, it's ".NET, Java or other" where other is just as likely to be PHP, CF, or Rails. -- John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint (blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com (email) ashenfelterj@transitionpoint.com

Dave, you have wisdom well beyond your years... (that if you are under 200 years old :) ) /regards Victor ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Sure, you can improve HTML applications by using CSS, XHTML, JavaScript, > AJAX, etc, etc, but HTML is a > fundamentally unsuitable technology for application interfaces. > So, yes, to the extent that "webbiness" means "suckiness", Flex should > reduce the "webbiness" of the web. Flex is about applications. HTML is > not, > no matter how much we try to make it so. But surely apps like Google maps or Gmail are excellent examples of web apps deployed successfully using HTML/JS etc.  These statements seem to be too much of a generalisation to me. -- Neil Middleton Visit feed-squirrel.com

My thoughts exactly. Gmail is one of the best email clients I've used, desktop or web. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- -- CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/

Hehe... This topic illustrates the great "cool designer vs geeky coder" gap. Perhaps you designers out there haven't noticed, but.... The most popular sites for geek coders are not RIA - they are sites like slashdot, wikipedia and source forge. The rule of thumb is the more text (especially raw code samples) and the less animation and foofy stuff it has - oh... And the more obscure the topics and jargon ... The more appealing it is to your average coder.  So for them, html is like manna from heaven, while flash makes them blow chunks :) My thoughts exactly. Gmail is one of the best email clients I've used, desktop or web. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- apps > deployed successfully using HTML/JS etc.  These statements seem to be too > much of a generalisation to me. -- CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/

That's a fair cop - I'm certainly on the geeky coder side of that gap. I don't care if it fades out, blows up or whitsles dixie, I just want to read it and deal with it in the most efficient way possible. I must say though that the slashdot css redesign contest is a godsend. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- -- CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/

> My thoughts exactly. Gmail is one of the best email clients I've used, > desktop or web. While I will agree with the statement that gmail is one of the best email clients I have used, one of the reasons is that google has the resources to develop around all of the quirks that come with the various browsers when using js, css, etc. I love the idea of having applications like gmail, that are easy to use, and available almost anywhere with just a simple interface like a browser...but I've found that almost exclusively, only google can make really complicated applications a reality when using these methods. I've signed up for just about every online calendar in the past year (kiko, planzo, trumba, 30 boxes) in a search for one I could live with (and have finally settled on....wait for it...google calendar).  The ones that relied heavily on AJAX type technologies invariably would bog down performance with the browser eating up half my memory.  Some of the developers on these projects are amazing, and they can do really cool things, but they just don't have the resources to work the kind of hacks that google does.  And the fact is they are hacks...really well executed hacks in some cases, but hacks none the less.  And even google doesn't get it right all the time...their initial implementation of chat in gmail returned a lot of the "suckiness" to that application.  And don't even try to debug your javascript while gmail is open...open up the FF javascript console sometime while you are using gmail...and watch the warnings fly by. -- Jim Wright Wright Business Solutions wrightjim@gmail.com 919-417-2257

> Dave, you have wisdom well beyond your years... (that if you > are under 200 years old :) ) I wish. (About the wisdom part - I don't want to be 200 years old. Not yet, anyway.) I just happen to remember how applications worked before the web came along. Moving applications to the web made a lot of new things possible - at a cost. The cost was that we threw everything we knew about designing application interfaces out the window. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information!

> But surely apps like Google maps or Gmail are excellent > examples of web apps deployed successfully using HTML/JS etc. Sure, they are the best of a bad lot. To hold either one out as an "excellent" application is to show how low the bar is set for excellence. Compare Google Maps to Google Earth, a native Windows application, and you'll see what I mean. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information!

> > But surely apps like Google maps or Gmail are excellent > > examples of web apps deployed successfully using HTML/JS etc. > > Sure, they are the best of a bad lot. To hold either one out as an > "excellent" application is to show how low the bar is set for excellence. > Compare Google Maps to Google Earth, a native Windows application, and > you'll see what I mean. I think the crux of the matter is that HTTP is "pull" without much "push". "A native Windows application" The other crux. We're getting there tho - man!, look at all this cool stuff now. Woot! :D

> Compare Google Maps to Google Earth, a native Windows application, and > you'll see what I mean. > > just as a point of order, Google Earth is also available for OSX -- mac jordan home: www.kestrel.org work: www.webhorus.net them: www.jordan-cats.org

> But I'd personally maintain that for many pitches for > building web apps, it's ".NET, Java or other" where other > is just as likely to be PHP, CF, or Rails. CF does have a potential advantage in the Java world, in that it can integrate quite well with J2EE applications; it can be used as a replacement for JSP. In some enterprise environments, where J2EE is the standard, CF is considered to be within the standard, because it can be deployed on J2EE. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information!

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Agreed! It's a much easier argument now (post CFMX) to say that CF is really just Java (or even say its really just .NET if you're using Blue Dragon .NET). It's the same argument getting Ruby (not Rails, Ruby) in the door in some cases. JRuby runs Ruby apps in Java (though not Rails yet, and not the RubyGems package manager with the current release) with Bean Scripting Framework support (so you can do a lot of CFMX-style treating Java objects just like a Ruby class). Ditto for Python on JPython Not to mention the pending JSR 223 which will support scripting for the Java platform from other languages with PHP as the initial reference implementation. But the CF *is* Java argument is still the most potent of these examples. -- John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint (blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com (email) ashenfelterj@transitionpoint.com