Re: (OT) Templating laziness

> I also make the distinction by pointing out that CF has virtually no > application if it isn't integrated (That is, both are in the same file) > with HTML, whereas PHP stands by itself, and does so well. So essentially > I see it as a difference in focus, or perhaps more accurately a change in > focus. PHP began as a template system also, after all. However as more > and more functions were added and it expanded more, calling it a > template system ceased to be accurate. CF has grown, but remained firmly > within the bounds of its intended purpose. Maybe that's just a > difference between a commercial product and an open source project. I agree that PHP is a different beast when used outside of the browser. If that is what you mean, then I get it. But in terms of their use on the web, (which seems to be the vast majority of the use of PHP-- I don't see that many questions on this list, for example, that clearly come from people who are using PHP outside of the web/browser/web server as many do C, Perl, etc), they are very similar and both can be called "template" languages, though that label puts them in a much smaller box than either of them belong. I guess I was framing the discussion in terms of PHP for Web Applications, in which case the fit seems wrong. I like PHP a lot, and it is in many ways a much better language than CF as far as I can tell, but I don't see (again, in terms of developing web applications) that it does a lot that CF isn't also used to do-- but PHP does so in a more stable, more cross-platform manner... and it's a heck of a lot cheaper! c