PHP or COLDFUSION

[English Teacher]

Which would be more useful to learn, PHP or COLDFUSION? I know
Coldfusion is popular in the work force. Is PHP?

Thanks!

[Terence]

lhorwinkle wrote:

What's the fight all about?
Yes, it does seem to have turned into nothing more :(
You can use BOTH on the same server, can't you?

You cirtainly can :)

That's the spririt, give 'em all a try :)

[Terence]

Lester Horwinkle wrote:

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng**********@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab**************************@posting.google.c om...

Nonsense. We're talking about PHP vs. CF---*not* PHP tools vs CF
tools. In case, if you're not a Programmer but you're a drag-drop
clicker, then number of such tools--even enough DW addons are
available.

This is not about labeling people. Actually, I'm both. But clicking is
cheaper than coding. Business prefers cheaper.

It's clear that not everything can be done by clicking. But when it can,
it's foolish to write code to produce the same results.

Anyway, what tools for PHP can compare with Dreamweaver MX for CF?

Generating code [snippets] is easy. There are many tools that do it.
Even generating a GUI is relatively easy these days.

Generating an application architecture cannot be done by clicking. You
cannot even use your code snippet generators when you design an
architecutre for medium/large size app. So a click-fest quickly becomes
pointless [pun intended] as requirements creep up. Moral of the story,
don't build your foundations on "clickability". I've seen this done
before, intentionally and otherwise, and the long-term results are not
pretty.

Coders who express contempt for "happy clicky joy" technologies are not
just doing so becuase they were abused as children, it's usually because
they have gained enough expertise and experience to know that it is not
the solution that large companies market it to be. I wouldn't be
throwing out their advice simply because they appear to have a nerdy
approach (ie. they confess to actually preffering to type programming
code). Maybe some GUI junkies need to start thinking about how
everything is gonna hang together rather than hoping that a wizard like
DW is going to do it for them.

If all you want is some basic forms in a largely static site, the CF is
the way to go, not because it's "clickier", but because it's a piece of
cake to slap up some <cfquery/> and <cfoutput/> tags -- very useful
stuff indeed.

For larger apps, PHP is ideal because it has the ease-of-use of a
scripting language, but the behaviour potential of an OO language --
allowing you to do some decent modelling.

[Matthew Woodward]

On 11/10/03 3:58 AM, in article 3F**************@fastmail.fm, "Terence"
<tk******@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Lester Horwinkle wrote:
If all you want is some basic forms in a largely static site, the CF is
the way to go, not because it's "clickier", but because it's a piece of
cake to slap up some <cfquery/> and <cfoutput/> tags -- very useful
stuff indeed.

For larger apps, PHP is ideal because it has the ease-of-use of a
scripting language, but the behaviour potential of an OO language --
allowing you to do some decent modelling.

You say that as if you can't do OO programming in CF, which you certainly
can. CF is far more capable than mere form processing on simple sites. I
do a lot of PHP programming as well, and have done OO programming with PHP
on several projects, and your characterization of PHP as OO while CF is not
isn't accurate. I'd prefer not to get into the argument of "which is more
OO" which we've had here before; my point is that in large part CF is just
as OO as PHP, and in some cases (e.g. the way objects are handled
internally) CF is better than PHP, so arguing PHP's superiority based on its
OO capabilities isn't really a valid argument. Both languages allow you to
do object modeling equally well, and IMO using objects in CF is a lot less
klunky than it is in PHP. Based on what I've read about PHP 5 it looks like
they're fixing a lot of things so I'll definitely check that out for my next
PHP project, but you're selling the OO capabilities of CF (and the
capabilities of the language in general) very short in your
characterization.

Matt
--
Matthew Woodward
mp********@hotmail.com

[Terence]

Matthew Woodward wrote:

On 11/10/03 3:58 AM, in article 3F**************@fastmail.fm, "Terence"
<tk******@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Lester Horwinkle wrote:
If all you want is some basic forms in a largely static site, the CF is
the way to go, not because it's "clickier", but because it's a piece of
cake to slap up some <cfquery/> and <cfoutput/> tags -- very useful
stuff indeed.

For larger apps, PHP is ideal because it has the ease-of-use of a
scripting language, but the behaviour potential of an OO language --
allowing you to do some decent modelling.

You say that as if you can't do OO programming in CF

I explicitely mentioned the OO capability of CFCs in a previous post. I
also mentioned that I thought it was clunky in my opinion. That's not to
say it's completely useless. I regularly use CFCs to create web services
because it's a really quick and easy way to do this. I don't build whole
applications from CFCs though. I've looked at doing this but it would be
less effort just to write the dam java classes instead.

Having said that, I think if you were going to write large apps in CF,
you'd be better off using a 100% CFC approach then getting into a
<cfinclude/> or <cf_*/> tangle. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be
the norm, and I've spent way too much time trying to untangle other
people's mess -- maybe I'm just jaded ;)
, which you certainly
can. CF is far more capable than mere form processing on simple sites. I
do a lot of PHP programming as well, and have done OO programming with PHP
on several projects, and your characterization of PHP as OO while CF is not
isn't accurate.
You assertion that that is my characterisation of PHP and CF is
inaccurate. You have missed a previous post in this thread regarding CF
and OO.
I'd prefer not to get into the argument of "which is more
OO" which we've had here before; my point is that in large part CF is just
as OO as PHP, and in some cases (e.g. the way objects are handled
internally) CF is better than PHP, so arguing PHP's superiority based on its
OO capabilities isn't really a valid argument.
Of course it is, that's why I never argued that. I would say that if you
are going to do OO sites, PHP is far less effort than CFCs.

Both languages allow you to do object modeling equally well, and IMO using objects in CF is a lot less
klunky than it is in PHP.
Well this is where our opinions differ. I would say the opposite. And
belive me, I have plenty of experience in both.
Based on what I've read about PHP 5 it looks like
they're fixing a lot of things
v5 is not so much "fixing" things, but more like "adding features". I'm
so sick of people making assertions about whether one language is OO or
not based on these "features". PHP's ability to be object oriented is
not "broken", it just lacks some features that are supported by other
languages like Java and C++

If it's a fully featured OO language that you want, then use Java. I do
on occasion. But then there's times where you want speed and ease-of-use
in OO development, PHP is excellent for this.

For instance, it's pointless worrying about method overloading when PHP
is a scripting language, not a typed language -- so how can you overload
on types ? More to the point, why the heck would you want to? It already
supports default params which can be used to achieve the same thing. And
then it also supports type checking even though it doesn't require type
declarations. The language is very similar to Javascript from this point
of view.

A "feature" that would enhance OO PHP programming is encapsulation
levels [of access] such as private, public, protects. But this is a
feature of an OO technology, not a requirement.

Anothre nice-to-have "feature" is "pass by reference". Well it's not so
much that is is missing (due to the "&" operator), but it is not the
default behavior. So all they are doing with PHP5 is changing the
internals to make pass-by-refernce the default behaviour -- which is a
point of convinience so people who want to pass by reference all the
time can leave out the & operator.

Ain't nothing broken about OO programming in PHP. The orientation of the
program is entirely up to the programmer. Same goes for CF.

so I'll definitely check that out for my next
PHP project, but you're selling the OO capabilities of CF (and the
capabilities of the language in general) very short in your
characterization.

Matt

This is possible I suppose. Just remember though, I'm not selling
anything. After years of experience using both technologies, I'm bound
to have an opinion on these things. Equally assued is the fact that it
is bound to differ from others.

[Matthew Woodward]

On 11/10/03 7:34 PM, in article 3F**************@fastmail.fm, "Terence"
<tk******@fastmail.fm> wrote:

This is possible I suppose. Just remember though, I'm not selling
anything. After years of experience using both technologies, I'm bound
to have an opinion on these things. Equally assued is the fact that it
is bound to differ from others.

I use both CF and PHP as well, and I'm even starting to do some .NET, so I'm
not really trying to convince anyone one way or another so much as clear up
what I saw as inaccuracies in the one particular post to which I was
responding. I think you're still off-base by stating that CFCs are klunky
and that it's not much more work just to write Java classes (I did nothing
but Java programming for 3 years, so I'm pretty well-versed in that as well
....), and I've written several large OO projects with CFCs with great
results, but we're getting into the realm of opinion here so it's probably
not worth further debate. My apologies if I missed something you said in a
previous post, but I was staying out of the discussion because I thought it
was getting a little crazy. I switch back and forth between PHP and CF
pretty regularly on projects, I wish PHP had some of CF's features and
vice-versa, but I use and like both.

The bottom line is you use what makes sense for the particular project; when
I have a choice between PHP and CF, I would choose CF, whereas it sounds
like you would choose PHP. That's fine--either way the job will get done.
The thing I think all programmers need to realize is that if you're not
well-versed in multiple languages, you're limiting yourself. Just as a
general comment, I try to learn a new language every year or so, and I find
by learning a new language I start to think about my "main" language
differently; it only helps keep my mind flexible and keep me more marketable
as a programmer.

Matt
--
Matthew Woodward
mp********@hotmail.com

[d2003xx]

Karim <ka*******@yahoo.moc> wrote in message news:<in*****************************@40tude.net>. ..

On 4 Nov 2003 21:05:12 -0800, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

Karim <ka*******@yahoo.moc> wrote in message news:<yw****************************@40tude.net>.. .

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:14:39 +1100, Terence wrote:

Furthermore, PHP's function library is far far far superior to any
version of CF. Just check this out...
http://www.php.net/manual/en/funcref.php
unbeatable... this is where PHP craps all over Java and CF and .NET for
web apps.

Can you be more specific on why you think PHP is better than .NET? Did you
actually use ASP.NET?

BTW, have you ever used the cool PHP?

No.. but I used the cool ASP.NET.
Does PHP have a solid integrated IDE like Visual Studio.NET or C# Borland
whith commercial type debugging, profiling, prototyping, collaborative
work, etc? BTW, I am asking because I want to know and I am interested in
learn PHP if there are quality IDE's out there. (Dreamweaver is not one of
them).

http://www.activestate.com/Products/Komodo/

It's a quality IDE, but not a quality editor :-)

[Tony Marston]

Try http://www.phpedit.net/

Or if you are prepared to pay for a professional IDE written by the authors
of PHP then try http://www.zend.com/store/products/zend-studio.php

Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net

"d2003xx" <d2*****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d**************************@posting.google.c om...

Karim <ka*******@yahoo.moc> wrote in message

news:<in*****************************@40tude.net>. ..

On 4 Nov 2003 21:05:12 -0800, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

Karim <ka*******@yahoo.moc> wrote in message news:<yw****************************@40tude.net>.. .> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:14:39 +1100, Terence wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, PHP's function library is far far far superior to any
>> version of CF. Just check this out...
>> http://www.php.net/manual/en/funcref.php
>> unbeatable... this is where PHP craps all over Java and CF and .NET for>> web apps.
>
> Can you be more specific on why you think PHP is better than .NET? Did you> actually use ASP.NET?

BTW, have you ever used the cool PHP?

No.. but I used the cool ASP.NET.
Does PHP have a solid integrated IDE like Visual Studio.NET or C# Borland whith commercial type debugging, profiling, prototyping, collaborative
work, etc? BTW, I am asking because I want to know and I am interested in learn PHP if there are quality IDE's out there. (Dreamweaver is not one of them).

http://www.activestate.com/Products/Komodo/

It's a quality IDE, but not a quality editor :-)

[Peter Tilbrook]

And if the fact the ColdFusion is not FREE is an issue. Try New Atlanta's
BlueDragon software which is:

http://www.newatlanta.com/

[Aeros]

CF is a 'nonsense' language? Interesting. A language that if set up to
actually save you time and develop much more quikly is considered
'nonsense'...

yeah

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng**********@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab**************************@posting.google.c om...

Karim <ka*******@yahoo.moc> wrote in message news:<10*******************************@40tude.net >...

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:27:18 +1100, Terence wrote:

<snip>

I will be interested in why something is done better in php than asp.net.
It's like telling moon is a dangerous place before
witnessing/going there. You first learn a bit of PHP and then make any
judgement. Most of the PHP lovers here are actually moved from (esp.
me) all the nonsense languages including the one you vouch.

I gave you an example of a datagrid web control in asp.net. Many people
find it very productive. Now tell me what I can do in php better or

faster than in asp.net. Convince me with an example. Let's assume we both are
using SQL Server and IIS.

I don't want to waste my time in explaining PHP vs. PHP tools.
But, there are number of better such tools are freely available.

---
"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The
important thing is to not stop questioning."---Albert Einstein
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

[Jim Davis]

"Aeros" <we*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p******************@newssvr25.news.prodigy.c om...

CF is a 'nonsense' language? Interesting. A language that if set up to
actually save you time and develop much more quikly is considered
'nonsense'...

Don't even step your toe in - do a deja.com search for some of the people on
this thread. You'll soon see this kind of argument is a habit for them.

There are no winners.

Jim Davis

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

"Aeros" <we*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<7p******************@newssvr25.news.prodigy. com>...

CF is a 'nonsense' language? Interesting. A language that if set up to
actually save you time and develop much more quikly is considered
'nonsense'...
Well, I guess few reasons for your jottings:

1. You don't know what discussion is going here. If so, please find
some time to read the thread before jerking.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=yw15yfn5qg6q.16x05a4dfjcmj.dlg%4040tud e.net>
2. You don't even know what is PHP and what is CF. If so, please
learn them before replying here.
3. You don't know the difference between CF and CF tools. If so,
please learn the difference and come back.
4. You're yet-another troll.

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng**********@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab**************************@posting.google.c om...

Karim <ka*******@yahoo.moc> wrote in message

news:<10*******************************@40tude.net >...

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:27:18 +1100, Terence wrote:

<snip>

I will be interested in why something is done better in php than asp.net.

It's like telling moon is a dangerous place before
witnessing/going there. You first learn a bit of PHP and then make any
judgement. Most of the PHP lovers here are actually moved from (esp.
me) all the nonsense languages including the one you vouch.

I gave you an example of a datagrid web control in asp.net. Many people
find it very productive. Now tell me what I can do in php better or

faster than in asp.net. Convince me with an example. Let's assume we both are
using SQL Server and IIS.

I don't want to waste my time in explaining PHP vs. PHP tools.
But, there are number of better such tools are freely available.

--
"Dying is an art, like everything else"---Sylvia Plath
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com