RE: [PHP] php vs cold fusion

If PHP isn't already, I feel it will soon be a superior tool for server side coding than many other languages including CFM. However, CFM has a wide support base via a commerical organization. PHP is getting this too, but one real problem with PHP is the lack of PHP knowledgable programmers. I can feel the PHP ranks growing and once the "boss-man" sees a reasonable size supply of people to work on his storehouse of internal PHP code, he may adopt it outright. Until then who can blame folks for "buying in" to commercial solutions that have a decent supply of talent to back it up. One thing I really enjoy about PHP is the constant supply of new tricks that come along. I am about to put the PDFLib ability into my cusotmers PHP machines so they can generate PDF files on the fly. Way Cool and way handy for something like a classified ad system or anything else that can benefit from hard copy at the user end. I realize the PDFlib is supported by many languages (like perl, C, etc.), but I wonder if CFM is one of them. As a web hosting provider, I am floored by the ease with which I can add features to my PHP servers with a simple recompile of Apache/PHP. New Apache or PHP version today, new server version by tomorrow. New PHP feature today, new PHP feature online tomorrow. Awesome. And yes, I agree that OOP and relatively rich syntax are terrific attributes of PHP. I finally "got" the concept of OOP and Classes with PHP and am completly rethinking how I organize code. Code Fusion is not going anywhere soon, but PHP will quickly become just as valid a method of server side programming. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Daniels [mailto:daveqr@voyageronline.net] > > I have a running argument with a co-worker as to which is a more advanced > development tool, PHP or Cold Fusion. My argument in a nutshell > is that it's > a real language with features such as OOP and a relatively rich syntax and > collection of functions. He just says anything you can do in PHP > you can do > in Cold Fusion. That may be true to a point, but having worked > with CF just > a bit I feel limited by it's tag-based syntax. It would be nice > to have some > more ammunition. Any ideas?