Lasso vs. CFM

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lasso vs. CFM

Eric Landmann
I am meeting tomorrow with a potential client who has some Cold Fusion experience. I expect the conversation will turn to "Why use Lasso"? So, to be armed for this discussion, does anybody have any relevant comparison points of the two middleware technologies?

--Eric

--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

stevepiercy
Yes.  Turn it around: "Why use ColdFusion?"

Other than that, there used to be white papers on Lasso versus PHP and others, but I have no idea where those went after the acquisition.  I think they compared LP5 though, so they might not be all that useful today.

--steve


On Tuesday, June 7, 2005, [hidden email] (Eric Landmann) pronounced:

>I am meeting tomorrow with a potential client who has some Cold Fusion experience. I expect the
>conversation will turn to "Why use Lasso"? So, to be armed for this discussion, does anybody
>have any relevant comparison points of the two middleware technologies?
>
>--Eric
>
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                   <http://www.StevePiercy.com>

--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Jeremy Hahn
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
You could make present the following possibilities of using Lasso:

- Coldfusion's syntax is very different from universally accepted
programming / scripting syntax, and as such, makes it difficult for new
comers to pick it up and run with it. Lasso's HTML-like tag based syntax is
recognized even among the most novice users, who have only HTML experience.

- Coldfusion is not nearly as secure as Lasso. Lasso has a unique security
model in place that allows for fine tuning of its functionality. Any network
administrator knows the dangers of running server side languages, as well as
the vulnerabilities in which it makes present on the local network. The
security model in Lasso also allows granular permissions to be set on a
per-developer basis as well as per application or site basis.

- LassoApps: Creates 1 obfuscated file which is composed of every file in
the solution. This allows for simplified distribution, easy backups, and
preserves the integrity of the codebase.

- The Lasso support team is extremely committed and dedicated to the
difference which we make in the community for our clients. The entire Lasso
team always strives to go above and beyond client expectations with the
intention of providing extraordinary results as well as satisfaction, even
to the point of providing code solutions.

- Lasso has a dedicated community of users, who assist and support each
other in providing quality solutions to each and every client. Just take a
look at the growing LassoTalk or LassoForge website sometime, which has free
snippets and solutions for Lasso developers to use in their own
applications.

- Because its Lasso, of course! ;-)



Good luck with the presentation! :D
------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hahn
OmniPilot Software
Product Specialist
[hidden email]
Tel: 954-874-3151
Toll Free: 800-678-9958 x151
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Eric Landmann
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:05 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Lasso vs. CFM
>
> I am meeting tomorrow with a potential client who has some Cold Fusion
> experience. I expect the conversation will turn to "Why use Lasso"? So, to
> be armed for this discussion, does anybody have any relevant comparison
> points of the two middleware technologies?
>
> --Eric
>
> --
> ------------------------------
> Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
> Manage your list subscription:
> http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage



--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Fletcher Sandbeck
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
On 6/7/05 at 12:33 PM by [hidden email] (Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder):

>Yes.  Turn it around: "Why use ColdFusion?"
>
>Other than that, there used to be white papers on Lasso versus PHP and
>others, but I have no idea where those went after the acquisition.  I
>think they compared LP5 though, so they might not be all that useful
>today.

The white papers go out-of-date after a while, but you can still find them here if you want to take a look <http://lassodownload.omnipilot.com/pub/Reports/>.  The CF white paper is dated June 28, 2000.  I glanced at the competitive feature chart and it is pretty far out of date for Lasso so is probably equally far out-of-date for CF.

I honestly haven't looked very closely at the last couple releases of CF, but some general points in Lasso's favor generally include:  Lasso supports Macintosh in addition to Windows and Red Hat Linux.  Lasso offers built-in support for FileMaker, MySQL, SQLite, and JDBC data sources.  Lasso's database abstraction layer (inlines) is good because it allows code to be repurposed to other back-end data sources without rewriting SQL statements.

[fletcher]
--
Fletcher Sandbeck                         [hidden email]
Lasso Product Specialist              [hidden email]
OmniPilot Software, Inc.                http://www.omnipilot.com

--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Alan Golub
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
On 6/7/05 4:56 PM, "Fletcher Sandbeck" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I honestly haven't looked very closely at the last couple releases of CF, but
> some general points in Lasso's favor generally include:  Lasso supports
> Macintosh in addition to Windows and Red Hat Linux.

If Mac-compatibility factors into your decision, the above point is
particularly relevant. In exploring my options prior to purchase, I looked
at CF, in addition to PHP and Lasso. If I was working on a Windows machine,
I would have gone further in evaluating CF -- but my platform of choice is
OS X (currently 10.4.1). There are no off-the-shelf installers of JRun or CF
for Mac -- thus, you have to really get your hands dirty to install and
configure them to run on OS X. The documentation for this is, in fact,
available on Macromedia's web site, but it's not exactly easy to find, nor
is it supported. My recollection is that it was also a little out of date,
and written for the prior version of CF. All in all, it was extremely tough
going, and not at all the welcome intro to the tools that I needed to
convince me they were worth pursuing.

In contrast, the Lasso Professional and Dreamweaver Studio evaluation
version installs and configs were not only well-documented, but they were
intuitive and worked right "out-of-the-box." This allowed me to make the
most of my trial period, and ultimately, convince me to go with Lasso for
the projects I'm working on.

It's been almost a month since my purchase, and I couldn't be happier. Love
the tools, fascinated learning about its tremendous capabilities. And all
from the Mac I'd never consider giving up!

Regards,
Alan S. Golub



--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Greg Willits
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
>> I am meeting tomorrow with a potential client who has some Cold Fusion
>> experience. I expect the conversation will turn to "Why use Lasso"?
>> So, to
>> be armed for this discussion, does anybody have any relevant
>> comparison
>> points of the two middleware technologies?

People will always want to use what they know. In the absence of
factual data and hard, detailed comparisons, it's practically a waste
of time to describe why one language is "better" than the other. If the
language was that bad, no one would use it, so obviously it has merits.

I haven't programmed in CFM, but I did a deep look at it a while back.
So there are some of the impressions (right or wrong) that I got from
it.

CFM is more expensive than Lasso.

CFMX now runs on top of a Java server, so there's pros and cons to
that. You gain a lot of Java's strengths, but you have to put up with
the development overhead too, and the comparative complexity of running
a Java server & app config stuff compared to the Lasso server. When I
looked at it for a specific project, this was all considered a net
positive advantage.

The CFMX syntax is pathetically ugly, and in fact there are two
different syntaxes depending on whether you're scripting a la
LassoScript or you're tagging inside HTML. Lasso is the same syntax
with slightly different delimiters that make using LDML/HTML together
quite productive IMO, but CFMX actually uses two syntaxes. That's
because the original syntax is dog ugly and poorly conceived, so when
they added scripting they cleaned it up, but you're still stuck with
the old stuff too. Working with the language would have sucked, but if
you got a guy that's already used to using it, this argument is
meaningless.

CFMX's market position (so they say) is as the higher coding
productivity alternative to JSP. CFMX has higher level functioning tags
that do a lot of the dirty work you have to do yourself in JSP. So,
they pitch it as a developer productivity thing (which is the marketing
flavor of the month when battling Java these days with scripting
languages). If you want access to J2EE type stuff, but want to use
something more productive than JSP, well apparently CFMX is your
answer.

However, all that can be overkill depending on the application and the
development team dynamics.

How does it compare in performance to Lasso? I have no idea, but I
would bet it'd be faster for a lot of applications because of how it is
compiled and run as a Java app.

I think your main argument probably lies in the development process and
pitching yourself.


> You could make present the following possibilities of using Lasso:
>
> - Coldfusion's syntax is very different from universally accepted
> programming / scripting syntax, and as such, makes it difficult for new
> comers to pick it up and run with it. Lasso's HTML-like tag based
> syntax is
> recognized even among the most novice users, who have only HTML
> experience.

Uh... considering most everything else is somewhat or significantly C
syntax influenced, Lasso's syntax is very different from most people's
perspective too. I happen to like it, but Lasso syntax ain't exactly
standard-ish.


> - Coldfusion is not nearly as secure as Lasso. Lasso has a unique
> security
> model in place that allows for fine tuning of its functionality. Any
> network
> administrator knows the dangers of running server side languages, as
> well as
> the vulnerabilities in which it makes present on the local network. The
> security model in Lasso also allows granular permissions to be set on a
> per-developer basis as well as per application or site basis.

I have a tough time buying that Lasso is "more secure" than other
languages that don't have Lasso's huge admin thing going on. Some folks
have lobbied for a long time that Lasso's admin system needs to be
thinned down. Other languages use a different user security model, and
while there's no doubt certain flexibilities in Lasso's model that are
useful, a lot of it is completely bypassed when using -sql, and I don't
think the other languages suffer a "security" problem. Flexibility loss
maybe, but not actual security.


> - LassoApps: Creates 1 obfuscated file which is composed of every file
> in
> the solution. This allows for simplified distribution, easy backups,
> and
> preserves the integrity of the codebase.

CFMX apps compile to a Java WAR file, so same difference there.


> - The Lasso support team is extremely committed...

Yeah, those Macromedia guys are slackers.


> - Lasso has a dedicated community of users...

A rather smaller community, and I suspect CFMX users are dedicated too.

Seriously, this was something I was hoping OP would commission when
they took over--a detailed technical comparison of Lasso vs CFM and PHP
using expert developers from each language who can put forth an honest
best effort in a small application so we can compare coding
productivity, performance efficiency, and a bunch of other things run
on the same machine, etc. The arguments above are pretty thin. I
wouldn't want to stand on them.

IMO neither BW nor OP so far has ever been able to articulate in a
factual manner what Lasso's advantages are, who the prime target users
are, and the types of projects where Lasso is more cost effective than
other platforms. BW seemed to expect developers to come up with their
own marketing materials, but then slapped us when we tried suggesting
marketing ideas. I was hoping OP would take the bull by the horns more.

-- greg willits


(always willing to review and help develop plans to compare languages,
but someone needs to commission an honest effort by a PHP expert and a
CFMX expert -- neither of which I know, nor have the budget to hire)


--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Cory Robin
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
On 6/7/05 1:05 PM, "Eric Landmann" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I am meeting tomorrow with a potential client who has some Cold Fusion
> experience. I expect the conversation will turn to "Why use Lasso"? So, to be
> armed for this discussion, does anybody have any relevant comparison points of
> the two middleware technologies?
>
> --Eric

One last note:  RAPID DEVELOPMENT.  My company has saved countless
development hours with Lasso.

RAPID DEVELOPMENT = SPEED TO MARKET = MORE $$

Cory Robin
Chief Executive Officer
SkyVantage Corporation



--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Nikolaj de Fine Licht
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
A balanced, clear-minded, context-drawing and well composed post from
Greg. A pleasure to read and learn from... :)

/nikolaj

On 7. jun 2005, at 23:17, Greg Willits wrote:

>>> I am meeting tomorrow with a potential client who has some Cold
>>> Fusion
>>> experience. I expect the conversation will turn to "Why use Lasso"?
>>> So, to
>>> be armed for this discussion, does anybody have any relevant
>>> comparison
>>> points of the two middleware technologies?
>
> People will always want to use what they know. In the absence of
> factual data and hard, detailed comparisons, it's practically a waste
> of time to describe why one language is "better" than the other. If
> the language was that bad, no one would use it, so obviously it has
> merits.
>
> I haven't programmed in CFM, but I did a deep look at it a while back.
> So there are some of the impressions (right or wrong) that I got from
> it.
>
> CFM is more expensive than Lasso.
>
> CFMX now runs on top of a Java server, so there's pros and cons to
> that. You gain a lot of Java's strengths, but you have to put up with
> the development overhead too, and the comparative complexity of
> running a Java server & app config stuff compared to the Lasso server.
> When I looked at it for a specific project, this was all considered a
> net positive advantage.
>
> The CFMX syntax is pathetically ugly, and in fact there are two
> different syntaxes depending on whether you're scripting a la
> LassoScript or you're tagging inside HTML. Lasso is the same syntax
> with slightly different delimiters that make using LDML/HTML together
> quite productive IMO, but CFMX actually uses two syntaxes. That's
> because the original syntax is dog ugly and poorly conceived, so when
> they added scripting they cleaned it up, but you're still stuck with
> the old stuff too. Working with the language would have sucked, but if
> you got a guy that's already used to using it, this argument is
> meaningless.
>
> CFMX's market position (so they say) is as the higher coding
> productivity alternative to JSP. CFMX has higher level functioning
> tags that do a lot of the dirty work you have to do yourself in JSP.
> So, they pitch it as a developer productivity thing (which is the
> marketing flavor of the month when battling Java these days with
> scripting languages). If you want access to J2EE type stuff, but want
> to use something more productive than JSP, well apparently CFMX is
> your answer.
>
> However, all that can be overkill depending on the application and the
> development team dynamics.
>
> How does it compare in performance to Lasso? I have no idea, but I
> would bet it'd be faster for a lot of applications because of how it
> is compiled and run as a Java app.
>
> I think your main argument probably lies in the development process
> and pitching yourself.
>
>
>> You could make present the following possibilities of using Lasso:
>>
>> - Coldfusion's syntax is very different from universally accepted
>> programming / scripting syntax, and as such, makes it difficult for
>> new
>> comers to pick it up and run with it. Lasso's HTML-like tag based
>> syntax is
>> recognized even among the most novice users, who have only HTML
>> experience.
>
> Uh... considering most everything else is somewhat or significantly C
> syntax influenced, Lasso's syntax is very different from most people's
> perspective too. I happen to like it, but Lasso syntax ain't exactly
> standard-ish.
>
>
>> - Coldfusion is not nearly as secure as Lasso. Lasso has a unique
>> security
>> model in place that allows for fine tuning of its functionality. Any
>> network
>> administrator knows the dangers of running server side languages, as
>> well as
>> the vulnerabilities in which it makes present on the local network.
>> The
>> security model in Lasso also allows granular permissions to be set on
>> a
>> per-developer basis as well as per application or site basis.
>
> I have a tough time buying that Lasso is "more secure" than other
> languages that don't have Lasso's huge admin thing going on. Some
> folks have lobbied for a long time that Lasso's admin system needs to
> be thinned down. Other languages use a different user security model,
> and while there's no doubt certain flexibilities in Lasso's model that
> are useful, a lot of it is completely bypassed when using -sql, and I
> don't think the other languages suffer a "security" problem.
> Flexibility loss maybe, but not actual security.
>
>
>> - LassoApps: Creates 1 obfuscated file which is composed of every
>> file in
>> the solution. This allows for simplified distribution, easy backups,
>> and
>> preserves the integrity of the codebase.
>
> CFMX apps compile to a Java WAR file, so same difference there.
>
>
>> - The Lasso support team is extremely committed...
>
> Yeah, those Macromedia guys are slackers.
>
>
>> - Lasso has a dedicated community of users...
>
> A rather smaller community, and I suspect CFMX users are dedicated too.
>
> Seriously, this was something I was hoping OP would commission when
> they took over--a detailed technical comparison of Lasso vs CFM and
> PHP using expert developers from each language who can put forth an
> honest best effort in a small application so we can compare coding
> productivity, performance efficiency, and a bunch of other things run
> on the same machine, etc. The arguments above are pretty thin. I
> wouldn't want to stand on them.
>
> IMO neither BW nor OP so far has ever been able to articulate in a
> factual manner what Lasso's advantages are, who the prime target users
> are, and the types of projects where Lasso is more cost effective than
> other platforms. BW seemed to expect developers to come up with their
> own marketing materials, but then slapped us when we tried suggesting
> marketing ideas. I was hoping OP would take the bull by the horns
> more.
>
> -- greg willits
>
>
> (always willing to review and help develop plans to compare languages,
> but someone needs to commission an honest effort by a PHP expert and a
> CFMX expert -- neither of which I know, nor have the budget to hire)


--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Jonathan Schwarz
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
I have to weigh in here as a CF programmer AND a Lasso programmer.
Ultimately I must agree with the statement, "people will want what they
are comfortable with". I coded CF starting with v4.0 up through MX for 6
years and was very happy with the syntax and speed of development.

CF is a very easy language to learn! It is tag based, very similar to
HTML and very "English" - if you need to do something you can pretty
much guess the tag name by adding CF to the verb and just CFDO it! :)

I was not eager to move to Lasso, but the circumstances (job change)
required it. I found it to be just as easy to learn Lasso as it was to
learn CF. Each has its pros and cons, but ultimately both are valid
languages to use. And both language have EXCELLENT community support. I
have experienced this first hand on both sides.

As for security, speed, reliability, etc... you can probably find "white
papers" that tout each competing language as the best in all areas.

Bottom line, sell yourself, your development process, your smarts, YOUR
reliability, present Lasso as a valid tool with tons of support - but
don't try to wage war - it will create a defensiveness in the client.

-Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Hahn
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Lasso vs. CFM

You could make present the following possibilities of using Lasso:

- Coldfusion's syntax is very different from universally accepted
programming / scripting syntax, and as such, makes it difficult for new
comers to pick it up and run with it. Lasso's HTML-like tag based syntax
is
recognized even among the most novice users, who have only HTML
experience.

- Coldfusion is not nearly as secure as Lasso. Lasso has a unique
security
model in place that allows for fine tuning of its functionality. Any
network
administrator knows the dangers of running server side languages, as
well as
the vulnerabilities in which it makes present on the local network. The
security model in Lasso also allows granular permissions to be set on a
per-developer basis as well as per application or site basis.

- LassoApps: Creates 1 obfuscated file which is composed of every file
in
the solution. This allows for simplified distribution, easy backups, and
preserves the integrity of the codebase.

- The Lasso support team is extremely committed and dedicated to the
difference which we make in the community for our clients. The entire
Lasso
team always strives to go above and beyond client expectations with the
intention of providing extraordinary results as well as satisfaction,
even
to the point of providing code solutions.

- Lasso has a dedicated community of users, who assist and support each
other in providing quality solutions to each and every client. Just take
a
look at the growing LassoTalk or LassoForge website sometime, which has
free
snippets and solutions for Lasso developers to use in their own
applications.

- Because its Lasso, of course! ;-)



Good luck with the presentation! :D
------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hahn
OmniPilot Software
Product Specialist
[hidden email]
Tel: 954-874-3151
Toll Free: 800-678-9958 x151
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Eric Landmann
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:05 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Lasso vs. CFM
>
> I am meeting tomorrow with a potential client who has some Cold Fusion
> experience. I expect the conversation will turn to "Why use Lasso"?
So, to
> be armed for this discussion, does anybody have any relevant
comparison

> points of the two middleware technologies?
>
> --Eric
>
> --
> ------------------------------
> Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
> Manage your list subscription:
> http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage



--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage



--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Eric Landmann
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
Jonathan Schwarz <[hidden email]> wrote on Wednesday, June 8, 2005:

>Bottom line, sell yourself, your development process, your smarts, YOUR
>reliability, present Lasso as a valid tool with tons of support - but
>don't try to wage war - it will create a defensiveness in the client.

Thanks everybody for your insights. I simply need enough information about CF to make a rough comparison.

The strategy I am taking here would be to stress that a Lasso/MySQL combination can easily handle the business requirements of the site, and also show our track record of site development. Relevant to the discussion is hooking lots of other open-source utilities that are time-tested and robust.

Most clients want to be assured that:

1. The developer is responsible, and can do what they say they can
2. The tools the developer uses are viable
3. The site will be developed in a manner that assures it will be able to handle the job
4. There is an expansion path beyond one server
5. There is a failsafe if the developer disappears (gets hit by the proverbial beer truck)

If you get into a This vs. That engagement, it usually never works out well. CF vs. Lasso, Microsoft vs. Apple, etc. People usually have their mind made up already.

--Eric

--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Clive Bruton
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
Jonathan and Greg, thanks for your comments here, I think it's  
important what you say - you need to stress your abilities over the  
choice of tools. At the end of the day it's unlikely that anyone  
would be able to drive much of a wedge between any of these tools -  
because they are all trying to address the needs of the same market.

It's like trying to win a logo commission on the strength of whether  
you use Macromedia Freehand or Adobe Illustrator - the end user  
doesn't care.


-- Clive

--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso vs. CFM

Hans de Wit
In reply to this post by Eric Landmann
You are correct Clive. However we do not always know the long term plans
of the end user. If the end user is even partially fluent in CFM, he can
then easily communicate with the programmer/developer at his level, as
well as possible look at doing his own maintenance at a later date. It
would be important to know if the End User is only commissioning you for
the short time to develop the product and then walk away, OR does he
want a lifetime commitment. This can weigh heavily on the decision. In
retrospect, I am not saying he is right, he is just the end user. I have
seen large companies make the wrong choice based on an individuals
knowledge of one tool.

Hans

Clive Bruton wrote:

> Jonathan and Greg, thanks for your comments here, I think it's  
> important what you say - you need to stress your abilities over the  
> choice of tools. At the end of the day it's unlikely that anyone  
> would be able to drive much of a wedge between any of these tools -  
> because they are all trying to address the needs of the same market.
>
> It's like trying to win a logo commission on the strength of whether  
> you use Macromedia Freehand or Adobe Illustrator - the end user  
> doesn't care.
>
> -- Clive
>


--
------------------------------
Lasso Support: http://support.omnipilot.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso
Manage your list subscription:  
http://www.listsearch.com/lassotalk.lasso?manage