ASP.net vs. Cold Fusion (a comparative)

[fastedge]

Howdy folks. Today in my companies weekly web meeting one of the company heads wanted to know why we wheren't using ASP.net instead of Cold Fusion for the development of our web sites. Apparently some consultant was whispering sweet dot.net in his ear.

So, the question is what are the major differences? What can I do with one that I can't do with the other. I need practical information that I can present to the powers that be one way or the other.

Thanks allot,
Ed Mercado,
Webmaster,
www.bigfive.com

[bhopkins]

Ed, I have used both of these so maybe I can give you a little insight. Cold Fusion is a decent scripting language, but it does not really use advanced programming principles and an effecient way for code re-use. I understand the Macromedia is working to resolve some of this by tying the platform more closely to JSP, but that comes at the expense of speed. With asp.net you can define a few classes to do the majority of the DB access stuff and then just call the compiled dlls when you need the functionality. THe new version coming out some time next year will even take this to a much higher level than it is now. If you would like a view of some of the stuff that can be leveraged with Asp.Net then I suggest you take a look at http://www.dotnetnuke.com it is an open source app that will show you some of the power of asp.net and VB.Net. In addition to the portal system their is also a growing list of free and paid modules and enhancements you can use for the system. There is several free modules on my site you can download if you just want to get a feel for some of the things you can do with this. Also on the dotnetnuke site there is a pretty good list of modules others have created.

[AlanMCSD]

There is no better tool right now for doing web applications, xml web services, you name it.

You use server controls instead on html controls and the .net run time generates the html.

When you recieve a post back the controls are re-created so you get object access to html controls.

Like
<asp:TextBox runat="server" id="txtEmail">
would create <input type="text" id="txtEmail>

then on a postback the control is recreated so you get oject access to it.
Like
form.txtEmail.text

Server code is contained in a seperate file from the aspx page - isoloating the code from the UI - makes everything nice and tidt.

I could go on all day - but after 4 years of dealing with spaghetti in asp, I am loving .net.

[mdinowit]

I've been doing ColdFusion since before Asp was iBasic. CF allows for faster development with less code and the result is code that is easier to understand by a human being. Yes, Asp is powerful but there's really not much it can do more than CF. The question is where your coming from.
CF was written from the ground up as a peoples language for the net. This means that its easy to learn, easy to use and easy to understand.
Asp was basically a port of VB to the web (VBScript). It requires 'real' programming knowledge, something not necessarily needed by CF.
Bottom line is that Both are good languages, both do the job and both are worth using. CF requires less code and coding time while Asp has the MS name and the myth of being free (the CF server costs while Asp is part of IIS).
If you search google on this topic with a focus on the site:houseoffusion.com you'll find many mailing list threads from CF-Talk where this issue has been examined to the most minute detail.

Just as a note, CF has multiple ways of efficient code reuse, web services, programatic constructs, custom tags/functions/objects, etc. As I said, there's very little that Asp has over CF feature wise and I can back that up point for point if need be. :)

[drac]

I would go with CF. You get to code quickly with a lot of code reuse. There are many free add ons, like e-mail sending ability (1000000 per hour - industry strength).

Anything from MS ties you to their platform, if Windows goes down you go with it.

Go to www.macromedia.com and see their migration page from asp to CF (by Ben Forta). It shows how much less typing you have to do in CF. MS always over-complicates things.

If you want to do something complex in CF you can always use Java technology that is an industry standard unlike Visual Basic or some other MS-only technology.

Of course, if you own a lot of MS stock, go with their product, through you will be less productive.

TK

[AlanMCSD]

I suggest you read the topic.

ASP.NET is nothing like ASP. Being a veteran developer myself I have used a variety of tools as well. And I can tell you first hand, that if I do not have to leave the .net world, I won't.

ASP - ugly spaghetti code filled with include files and script.

ASP.Net - totally object oriented, compiled code, web form controls - <asp:Textbox runat=server> gives you an object.

Web user controls - no more include files - plust they are compiled

Don't knock it till you try it.

[drac]

CF is also quite OO and produces nice, clean code. However, it is far simpler than asp.net to learn, operate and use.

I would love to see a competition on the web between people using CF vis PHP vis asp .net
I think that especially in the area of web services CF would be in a class on its own (a leader) compared to the competition. Hit MS where it hurts :)

TK

[mdinowit]

ASP.NET is nothing like ASP. Being a veteran developer myself I have used a variety of tools as well. And I can tell you first hand, that if I do not have to leave the .net world, I won't.

Yes, they are different but in the specific place that I'm looking they are the same. Asp.Net code is large, cumbersome and long winded rather than being direct and to the point.
I just reviewed a book teaching people how to do basic DB work using dreamweaver and both CF and Asp.Net. The code shown did not make Asp.Net look any better than its ancestor.

How many lines does it take to output a formatted date in Asp.Net? According to the book it was more than 4 (based on memory) while CF needs a single line.

[Adrocknaphobia]

Cold Fusion is a decent scripting language, but it does not really use advanced programming principles and an effecient way for code re-use. I understand the Macromedia is working to resolve some of this by tying the platform more closely to JSP, but that comes at the expense of speed.

bHopkins, you couldnt be more wrong. I suggest you check out the latest version of CFMX which is 175% faster than CF5. Not only do we have _tight_ integration with JSP but the server is tremendously faster now. There are a number of methods and architectures built for CF to maximize OO design and code reuse. I suggest you check out the Mach-ii Framework.

What about server costs? New Atlanta offers a Cold Fusion server dubbed Blue Dragon at _no_ cost, while boasting great integration with .NET.

Oh wait... don't forget Flash Remoting! CF is the easiest way to integrate your server side with client side Flash applications aka. Rich Internet Applications.

CF is platform idependent. Your shop doesn't have to be locked into an OS vendor. It'll run on windows and any j2ee server.

Finally, the CF developer community is the best around.

[webappermb]

I would just like to add that using ColdFusion with either Fusebox or Mach-II (if ColdFusion MX and OO structured) brings a recognizable and well-used framework to developing Web Applications. The ever improving integration between Flash and CF is another area where .NET does not quite have the same level of GUI facility. One more point (Blue Dragon excluded) people are still prepared to purchase CF Server, that in my opinion is a big vindication as to the efficacy of ColdFusion for reasons that are well documented in this thread.