Feature

ASP

Cold Fusion

Comments

Syntax

script-based, developer friendly; supports VB syntax.

tag-based, html author friendly. Supports JS style scripting as well.

ASP has support for multiple, extensible scripting languages. CF's tag syntax is simpler and easier

DB connectivity

Database connectivity through ADO COM object - ODBC

Database connectivity through tags - ODBC, Native drivers, OLE DB, ADO COM objects, etc.

the CF DB tags are somewhat easier to use than ASP ADO objects.

Data manipulation

direct, through ADO objects

implicit, through tag usage

ASP's recordset objects instead of tag parameter is more flexible, powerful

Architecture

ISAPI filter

ISAPI, WSAPI, NSAPI filters and Apache Modules

both products run as ISAPI filters in IIS's address space for excellent performance and integration with IIS. CF also runs on the other 'standard' servers.

Extendibility

Server components can be created in any tool that produces COM objects (OLE servers), like VB, VC++, etc.

extension tags can be produced using the CF language itself, or C++ API, any COM objects usable in ASP can also be used here. CF 4 adds in CORBA functionality as well. Java Class usage added through outside tag.

CF wins, it can use any ASP components, plus you can write your own tags

Pre-built functionality

VB library functions and Server objects, components

function library and Server objects

both have excellent support here

Application framework

dynamic, using server side objects and event programming

dynamic and/or static, using an automatically included application file

ASP's model is event based, whereas CF's is include based, but both are capable of the same things

State Management

dynamic, using a temporary cookie to identify a server side object with configurable expiration

static across user sessions, using a permanent cookie with storage in the Windows registry/database, or dynamic just like ASP's

CF will do state management just like ASP, or it can preserve state across browser sessions making it more flexible.

Debugging

error message sent to browser upon runtime errors, or not. On/Off switch, no customization.

configurable debugging information (including SQL debugging info) sent to browser upon runtime errors, can be restricted to certain IP addresses

CF has by far the better debugging

Error Handling

Default error screens are ugly, roll your own if you don't like them. You can trap and handle errors in script, although the process is ugly and limited.

Allows specification of a default error handling HTML template, into which error information is plugged, much easier to display consistent and complete error information. Ability to trap errors in script and take conditional action.

CF has much better support for customizable error messages.

Web Server Support

IIS only, possibly others w/ non-MS add-ons (like ChileASP)

any CGI compliant web server, a number of servers using native APIs (ISAPI, NSAPI, WSAPI, etc)

CF wins hands down

Maturity

rough around the edges

polished, 4.0 product

CF has been around longer and is more polished, complete, and easy to use product; but ASP has made huge strides quickly