: RE: CFML tags was: The long tail of ColdFusion fail
I come from the days of Everyware and Pervasive using the Tango technology.
Same idea as CF being a tag-based language with an application server.
Tag-based is easier to learn and has many benefits.
When Macromedia bought CF, it was a God-send
this
by developers for CF.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Sanders [mailto:r...@webenergy.ca]
Sent: 18 March 2014 17:53
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: CFML tags was: The long tail of ColdFusion fail
I come from the days of Everyware and Pervasive using the Tango technology.
Same idea
Give it's unlike any other language one might already know,
Come on, can you imagine a CF developper who wouldn't know at least HTML?
how is it being tag-oriented a dev-friendly thing?
Just because the code and the HTML it is intended to produced are integrated
within the same syntax.
That
On Mar 18, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Adam Cameron dacc...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag-based code is godawful anywhere other than in a view, or some other
situation in which text-processing is needed. Which does not describe an
awful lot of CFML code out there.
That Macromedia/Adobe pushed the tag side
And people wonder why they think ColdFusion is old and outdated when
someone comes along and makes the comment that tags are the best thing
about ColdFusion Really, it was in the days when that was the thing, 20
years later the world has moved on and so should those developers who
continually
how is it being tag-oriented a dev-friendly thing?
Just because the code and the HTML it is intended to produced are
integrated within the same syntax.
That makes any template looks like ONE program written in ONE language,
not a program written in one language and another program in
But the bulk of your *code* should be separate from your views. So be
nowhere *near* HTML. So, accordingly, the reason for having tag-based
constructs in CFML should not be relevant in almost all your code.
Presuming you are doing a MVC framework.
On 18 March 2014 14:53, Phillip Vector vec...@mostdeadlygame.com wrote:
But the bulk of your *code* should be separate from your views. So be
nowhere *near* HTML. So, accordingly, the reason for having tag-based
constructs in CFML should not be relevant in almost all your code.
Presuming
But the bulk of your *code* should be separate from your views. So be
nowhere *near* HTML. So, accordingly, the reason for having tag-based
constructs in CFML should not be relevant in almost all your code.
Presuming you are doing a MVC framework.
MVC and/or frameworks aren't the reason
But the bulk of your *code* should be separate from your views.
Well, if you really like masochistic constraints like MVC just to make things
more accademic, you can, but you will still use CF to code the views and the
data, and working with the same language in the SGML family simply makes
Sanders
T: 902-401-7689
W: www.webenergy.ca
-Original Message-
From: Jon Clausen [mailto:jon_clau...@silowebworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:32 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: CFML tags was: The long tail of ColdFusion fail
On Mar 18, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Adam Cameron dacc
I completely agree with you, on all points.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
Marketing wise, Adobe is doing not a lot to nothing. If the Railo Company
would do some marketing, I bet they would take even more market share from
Adobe.
2014-03-18 19:16 GMT+01:00 :
I completely agree with you, on all points.
If the Railo Company would do some marketing
If they would above all produce some documentation!
I wanted to give it a try a couple of years ago, but the documentation was just
an arrid desert, so I gave up.
Is it any better now ?
Docs are still not commercial level, but there is more info available
about Railo in the Github wiki.
The docs about functions and tags are the same as the CF docs (available in
the railo admin).
But yes, docs have been a big discussion point on the Railo mailinglist but
without any good
The docs about functions and tags are the same as the CF docs
I could work using the CF docs, but if there is the slightest difference, plus
or minus, I need to be easily aware of it.
It is so important in my mind that I finaly prefered to buy the CF 9 server.
The docs in the railo admin are updated with the specific railo additions.
In the wiki is stated which functions are not supported from CF9/10 or have
differences in use/outcome.
Also if there is a function missing certain arguments/options in Railo from
the CF version, a simple bug report and
Better than nothing, but still not very developer friendly.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
I don't know - I mean - imagine if CF ignored extra tags, and you had
cfmail supersecure=true ...
Then you quit to become a Ruby developer. The next dev comes along who
isn't quite so familiar with CF and assumes that argument is doing
something even though it isn't.
Or heck, take Raymond
I'd *much* rather have CF complain than
silently ignore a bad argument.
I must admit I agree with you ;-)
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
Www.railodocs.org
Russ Michaels
www.michaels.me.uk
cfmldeveloper.com
cflive.net
cfsearch.com
On 18 Mar 2014 18:57, wrote:
If the Railo Company would do some marketing
If they would above all produce some documentation!
I wanted to give it a try a couple of years ago, but the
Www.railodocs.org
Much better than the last time I tried indeed.
Thanks.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
22 matches
Mail list logo
