Hacker News Reader

Comment by LeftCorner | Hacker News Reader

I been using ColdFusion for over 20 years. The HTML it creates can be as simple or complex as the developer intends. The output can last decades without updating, I don't understand your comparison.

View on HN

I recently changed jobs to a shop with 15-20 year old ColdFusion+SQL instances that were originally HP3000 Image Databases and COBOL screens. At first I laughed, now after a couple years, I agree ColdFusion is pretty robust and its HTML isn't bad at all. Its easy to do fairly complex forms, file operations, email generation, document generation, database in-out things, and it just keeps running and running. Its easy to read and understand and even though we're using MX-era code, the server still installs and runs on recent (Ubuntu 16.04LTS) Linux with no issues.

The issue isn't the HTML it renders, it's finding a hosting provider that supports running it server-side.

Of course you could run it yourself, but maintaining a server for a basic blog or personal site arguably exits the realm of "simple."

For a blog or personal site (that didn't have any functionality that really needed a back end) I suppose you could just scrape the generated pages and push them up to any host, but CF seems like a fairly awkward static site generator compared to the usual suspects like Jekyll, Hugo, etc.

They weren't talking about the output. They were talking about availability of hosting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com