On Tuesday, Oct 1, 2002, at 06:49 US/Pacific, Benjamin S. Rogers wrote: > This is the exact same argument that gets made against ColdFusion.
Not by me. > I'm > sure those early Word Perfect assembly programmers said the same thing > about programmers writing word processing programs in languages like C > and *gasp* VisualBasic. Not in my experience. I wrote my first word processing program (a template-driven automobile insurance letter editor) in assembly language in '81 and it was a pain. I wrote my second word processing program (a dual-language, English-Cyrillic, general WP) in C in '84. I, like many other assembly programmers, were quite glad of the additional expressive power in C - and of course we reassured ourselves that it often generated code that was close to what we could do by hand (not always of course, but compiler optimizations improved rapidly in the 80's). >> Of course, this isn't really FB's fault: > Of course this isn't really > (C's|C++'s|Java's|VisualBasic's|ColdFusion's) fault. :) Well, actually this hidden complexity *is* ColdFusion's fault. Or at least, pre-MX ColdFusion's fault. Like C, it was not designed to support OO-style frameworks (see the mess that is early X-Windows source code). Now we're seeing a problem that *is* Java's fault - it was designed with inherent limitations. An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida Architecting a New Internet Experience Register today at http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002 ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm 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
