I totally agree Paul. As someone said a while back, not all CF developers have a programming background, without real world examples easliy available and well documented one ends up programming to what one knows. I assume most of us don't have time to be bogged down in learning from scratch from books, but we have a lot of catching up to do with the old skool programmers and the thinking behind applications.
I saw Raymond Camden talk about CFCs at CFUN and it was useful, for instance he went through the use of web services, but other than that I didn't get a nice easy, this is how it works in simple language and these are the things it does for you. It's much easier to learn when you are given a good overview of the purpose of what you're learning, and I haven't found anything yet that is particularly helpful. I agree with Simon that CF web applications should grow up a little (when needed) but we need much better literature (online and offline). Why don't you write a book Simon- you're good at explaining stuff ;0) d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 3:16 PM Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] CFC's was RE: [ cf-dev ] so.... :D I love CFMX and think that it's a definite improvement on the prior versions of CF. However the issues are: A) training B) marketing The training and marketing of CFMX is still aiming at the wrong people - ie new developers, HTML developers - and not aimed at people who've been doing CF since version -2.93. Not only that, but I don't think there is enough output from MM on real-world scenarios and (as has already been said) best-practices or anything like that. It's there, but not wonderfully accessible. I think CFC's are a fantastic idea, and a really useful tool. I have made a few test CFC's on my machine and like them. However, I have had no reason to use them in a real world application, because there is not enough CFMX out there that is being used with the clients I am working with. Maybe it's just my clients, but if MM really wanted lots of people to be using CFC's, they'd be giving people free/cheap upgrades to MX, promoting madly to try and get people on board etc. They aren't! They are marketing it as "It's CF, just better" and it needs to be sorted out if MM want us to make more of it! I place the responsibility for the lack of training and understanding of these tools firmly at MM's feet. However, I doubt if they will change much because of what I've said! Whatever happened to "Here's a real world CFC that you can use" or "Here's all the features of CFMX in a complete real-world application" or something rather than trying to explain the best ways to use Flash as a front end (which imho is actually far less useful to most of the CF Developers I know!). Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 July 2003 15:02 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] CFC's was RE: [ cf-dev ] so.... > > > > this is a good debate. i think there's still a big market > for ye olde CF > 5. the beauty of CF used to be that a complete newbie could > probably install the server and get their first CF page up > and running in a very short space of time. If you could > understand an HTML tag and the basics of Iteration, > Selection, Sequence, then you knew enough to understand the > majority of CFML. > > I don't know the same could be said of CFMX, and I think > it'll deter any newbies from picking it up. Existing CF > heads can maybe manage, but anyone who's got to learn their > first server-side application language are probably more > likely than ever before to go with PHP. > > just my 2pence. > > > Duncan Cumming > IT Manager > > http://www.alienationdesign.co.uk > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: 0141 575 9700 > Fax: 0141 575 9600 > > Creative solutions in a technical world > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Get your domain names online from: http://www.alienationdomains.co.uk > Reseller options available! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > "Paul Johnston" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > tions.com> cc: > > Subject: > RE: [ cf-dev ] CFC's was RE: [ cf-dev ] so.... > 03/07/2003 14:39 > > Please respond to > > dev > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if it's whether we use their "full power" > or whether > > > they are actually not that "useful" for the majority of sites. > > > > Its interesting. Many developers aren't sure whether their old apps > > should now be using CFCs, or any new ones should be, or > whether they > > should be using them at all. > > Very true.... > > I don't see the point in using some of the "features" of > coldfusion for the majority of sites that I write. Now, that > may be my clients not currently using MX, or it may be that > the extra "features" of MX are actually not that important to > the majority of clients! There are issues of stability etc, > and also some useful coding features, but CFC's are not and > don't appear to be a major factor in upgrading from 5 to MX > or transferring from another app server to MX. > > Paul > > > > -- > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
