On Friday, July 26, 2002, at 10:34 , Alex Hubner wrote > Pure CF > programmers are now being "forced" to know a little of Java, to take > care of a lot of new things (such as text encoding, data types and > stuff) that is suppressed by the easy of CF5 and previous versions.
Well, I don't really think that's true. Compatibility with CF5 is pretty good (especially considering CFMX is a complete rewrite!) so existing CF5 continue to run just the same. The difference is that CFMX now *allows* you to care about text encodings are so on. For the first time, you can actually write a CF app that really understands locales and character set encodings and so on. > Well, this can be a good thing (at least I agree myself) but it also is > a bad thing because CFML becames more complicated and loose it's most > important feature: simplicity. The simple stuff that worked in CF5 still works just the same in CFMX. Did people criticize the introduction of UDFs in CF5 as making CFML more complicated? Or did they cheer at the new functionality? Interestingly, at last night's BACFUG we did the regular "show of hands, who is using feature XYZ?" - there were more CFers working with XML than using UDFs. > To start with it I can say that I'm 99% convinced that FuseBox > applications ... runs pretty much slower under CFMX than in CF5. Why are you convinced of that? Just curious. > [Fusebox] (a very high acceptable concept in "making good CF code") Of course that depends on who you ask :) "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
