I agree with you, Dave. I found out a long time ago that if someone else sets the rules of competition, you lose. IMHO, the rush to make CF more like Java is a losing strategy and a particularly odd one, when, as you point out, so much of the world seems to be discovering or re-discovering much of what makes CF attractive. I half-expect someone to announce a CF presentation layer called Schwing...
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Watts Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 5:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Static CFC methods > Two responses to this concern: > > 1) All of the enhancements we're making to CFCs in BlueDragon 7.0 > will be optional. Like CFCs themselves, if anyone thinks these > advanced features are too complex then they're free not to use them. > > 2) All of these enhancements will be fully backwards-compatible. > That is, if you write CFC code that runs on CFMX or BD 6.2.1, that > code will continue to run without modification on BD 7.0. > > Finally, I do believe these enhancements will be simpler for CFML > developers than writing the same thing in Java. I'd don't think adding > optional TYPE="static" or TYPE="abstract" > attributes to CFFUNCTION is going to be too difficult for most people > to understand (especially the advanced CFC developers that are > represented on this list). I wouldn't worry too much about addressing my concern; it's somewhat irrational anyway. I realize that no one's forced to use these features, and I do think that CFML will still be simpler than Java. The overall trend in the evolution of CFML is toward additional complexity, and I have mixed feelings about that, but I don't have a better answer. It does seem somewhat odd to me that CF is becoming more like Java, while the rest of the web app scripting world is becoming more like CF - greater emphasis on tags vs C-style code than before, looser typing, etc. And, while all this stuff will be optional, programming like any other field is somewhat subject to peer pressure - if CFML "best practices" derived from the leading folks in CF development (like the people on this list) end up being akin to writing an app in Java, that's what everyone else will aim for. But again, I don't really know what the answer to that is, just that it makes me a bit uneasy. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
