Live data from Hacker News

Coldfusion is “Unpopular” – I don’t care

dev.to

81–83 of 83 posts

Re: Coldfusion is “Unpopular” – I don’t care

#81
post #15
post #4

>And, more important… does it matter? If author wants to continue using CF for his own reasons, that's fine but it's still worth knowing why others care about popularity : 1) job prospects - e.g. knowing Javascript will have more relevance in job hunting than knowing Microsoft's VBScript that was used in Internet Explorer 8. 2) large community that has seen similar problems and can provide answers to copy&paste code…

OTOH, all reasons are cons... an expert in an esoteric system with none of those will be paid her weight in gold by the fewer employers in need of a very finite resource... while js programmers are a dime a dozen.

Old, esoteric systems also require knowledge of the system, which can be practically impossible to get from the outside. This is why learning COBOL in 2019 probably won't get you a six-figure job maintaining old bank mainframes. You may know the language but if you have no clue how these bank mainframes work outside of using COBOL, you aren't going to be a great candidate.

Re: Coldfusion is “Unpopular” – I don’t care

#82
post #8

A year or two ago I would have replied that ColdFusion is actually dead, and that using it or really, even, maintaining applications in it is irresponsible, because it's virtually impossible to secure. But I think it may have become so archaic that vulnerability researchers aren't really hitting it as much any more? Maybe you've weathered the storm, and CF will be safe to use from here on out? (Obviously: don't use C…

When you say archaic are you saying that the language hasn't been kept up to date? (If so you would be wrong)

I remember when it was being designed and first release that it was such a hodge-podge of ideas that in combination resulted in something that we could trivially see were bad using principles from long before.

Re: Coldfusion is “Unpopular” – I don’t care

#83
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about the nuclear version/free energy thing mentioned by the parent. The language itself is probably more popular than the "tech", at least it demonstrably works.

Cold fusion isn’t free energy - I don’t know where you got that idea.

It is the way you identify any of the innumerable scams involving the idea of cold fusion.
Post reply on HN