Blog article, heads up: "CFML: time for a CFML specification?"

Just in case you’re

And it might be discussion worthy? Dunno. Anyway, there you go.–

Agreed, but practically speaking, if that happens (pretty big if IMO),
it’ll be a while. A spec detailed enough to reduce incompatibilities is a
pretty big job I’d think.

I wrote this next bit yesterday, in response to other posts about
extensions vs core CFML. I backed off of posting it, as it somewhat goes
against the prevailing views here, I think, but here goes anyway.—
Every engine difference is an obstacle for commercial and open source apps
to overcome if they want to run on both ACF and Lucee. The more components
are missing or behave differently across the different engines, the bigger
the job and risk of staying compatible with both.

Incompatibilities don’t only affect Lucee, they make CFML as a platform
less attractive, which helps no one. Having both a commercial version
backed by a large company and a more agile free and open source alternative
is good for CFML as a language. The existence of ACF gives Lucee added
cred, and vice versa. The more they diverge, the less attractive the whole
platform becomes. Seems to be an unpopular theory, but I can’t see how it’s

The only way divergence isn’t problematic for Lucee specifically is if you
take Lucee as its own independent platform, not an implementation of the
CFML language. It doesn’t have a ton of mass to sell on that basis.

This is all somewhat moot though, because there’s no formal language spec
that both engines could work from, and Adobe has no apparent interest in
that anyway, only willingness to take obviously good features from other
implementations and do them a little differently, intentionally or not.

We’re not going to have a spec that both platforms intend to follow any
time soon, if ever. It seems to me that the key issue for Lucee really is,
what constitutes core functionality in the sense that Lucee intends to ship
with it, and how those decisions get made.

I realize that I’m posting only questions, not answers, but it’s what I’ve


On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 8:24:04 AM UTC-5, Adam Cameron wrote:

Just in case you’re interested:

And it might be discussion worthy? Dunno. Anyway, there you go.