Friday, July 13, 2007
The Rumors of ColdFusion's Death are greatly exaggerated
In my web wanderings I came across another article claiming that CF is dead. Couldn't find any way to provide feedback.Labels: Adobe, CF Is Not Dead Yet Series, ColdFusion
posted by Luis
5 Comments:
When I noticed there wasn't a way to comment the first thing I thought.. Every CF developer out there is going to be crazy frustrated :P
There is definitely a truth to it, although it might be a bit exaggerated.. My advice would be: don't put all your eggs in one basket..
The Sith have been using Coldfusion to power the Galactic Empire ever since it's inception.
It's something that the Alliance and their Rebel forces just don't get... Their insistence on using .NET and JAVA is the reason we continue to crush all their attempts to overthrow the Empire!
Unknown said...
His post is built to send him lots of traffic and thus make money. I suggest removing the link or at least making it rel no follow so search engines don't get the wrong idea.
Barry B said...
OOOOH! What they said! How rude!
"12 Coding Languages That Never Took Off"
GRRRR!
I'm offended that ColdFusion is claimed to belong here. I'm also dismayed Delphi is too (damaged more by Borland taking on Microsoft).
but that brings up an interesting point. On the back of another brain-dead article, I'm always looking for new ways of promoting CF especially since the article claims that CF's marketshare is (has?) been eroded by ASP.NET or PHP.
The counter for that is to two fold:
- bring in "new blood": more businesses using CF for the first time
- quickly stomp on any problems so existing CF users remain happy into the future
Peter Bell threw up some ideas on where CF can sit and what it's strengths are:
http://www.pbell.com/index.cfm/2007/6/3/ColdFusion--Why-Bother
Luis, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what you see as CF's strengths (especially with the feature-rich CF8 coming) and how they can be articulated to the businesses that would invest in CF.
Luis said...
@joshuacyr Should've marked the link rel in the first place, but was more annoyed than thinking at the time. I've corrected it.
