> I'm on my way out so can't read all, but paragraph 3 deserves > some kind of response: - > > "ColdFusion follows the same development and page execution > model as that of classic ASP, PHP, JSP, and other similar > Web-scripting languages. Specifically, code is embedded in > HTML markup, and as a given page executes from top to bottom, > the output of the code's execution takes the place of the > embedded code in the resulting HTML document. This development > model is easy to grasp, but it does have a number of drawbacks. > Chief among these is the lack of separation between application > logic and presentation markup. Mixing code and presentation > makes the code harder to read, which increases the time and > effort involved in maintenance, and creates significant > challenges for non-programming graphic designers who need to > modify a page. Over the years, ColdFusion has introduced > several ways to mitigate this lack of separation, including > custom tags, and others-but the fundamental model remains." > > What about cfc's and for those who really want to move more > OO concepts CF and Mach II. This is typical MS BS and > deserves a response from MM in my opinion. (A lot of bloody > abbreviations there!).
Not that Joel Mueller, the author of the article, needs my defense (he's a competent CF programmer, for what that's worth), but I think this is a pretty accurate statement. While you can, through your own discipline, separate presentation logic from business logic, there's nothing in CF to ensure that this happens. When you're using Visual Studio.NET to develop ASP.NET, on the other hand, the IDE makes this happen for you. To me, that's the fundamental difference between ASP.NET and any other web application development environment I've seen - it provides the illusion of building a GUI application, so that you feel like you're building a desktop application with an event-driven model, and under the covers, it creates a web application that follows the traditional rules of any other web application (as opposed to a "rich-client" interface like Flash MX). In CF's defense, of course, you can certainly segment your application logic if you choose to do so, and I prefer CFMX to ASP.NET because it makes things as simple as they can be - but no simpler. It's up to me to choose how my application will be constructed, and I don't need any expensive IDE to do this with CF. I think that for people who are more comfortable with the development model for GUI, event-driven applications, ASP.NET might be easier to pick up, but I think that in the long run, the abstraction it provides makes application maintenance much more difficult than it needs to be. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
