That's pretty much what I've done at my company as well. CFSCRIPT is just so much cleaner, and easier to read.
CFML tends to be only used when we are annotating HTML. Fregas wrote: >I know a development firm that tends not to use <CF> at all, but instead >puts everything in <CFSCRIPT> that they can. They claim tags are deprecated >in CFML. ;) > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Rob Rohan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:42 PM >Subject: RE: OT:Yahoo moving to PHP > > > > >>CF syntax is not ugly, but i do get tired of typing < > >>Thank God for cfscript >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:jeff@;farcryfly.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:28 PM >>To: CF-Talk >>Subject: Re: OT:Yahoo moving to PHP >> >> >> That is interesting... >> Check out Slide 22 . >> >> I wouldn't say that CF has an ugly syntax. ( I doubt many on this list >>would ). >> >> >>At 05:13 PM 10/29/2002 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >>>Check it out, in their presentation for why they chose PHP, they make >>>reference as to why they didn't go with CF or ASP >>> >>> >>> >>>http://public.yahoo.com/~radwin/talks/yahoo-phpcon2002.htm >>> >>> >>> >>>Ben >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
