>> Even if one allows CFMX leeway on this issue (I can
>
>Most OO languages allow the use of static classes, don't they? In those
>cases, you're not interested in creating instances of objects, you simply
>have an object that contains a bunch of useful, related methods.
>
>As for why you'd use "static" CFCs instead of UDFs, I'd suggest the facts
>that they generate documentation and can be used easily within Dreamweaver
>MX as two reasons.
>
>> I prefer a single, architecturally solid construct over
>> multiple ways to do things that violate the very benefits
>> that they are supposed to bring.
>
>I prefer to use languages that let me do what I want to do, rather than ones
>that tell me what I should do. Ease of use and flexibility are closely
>related. Granted, I wouldn't mind at all if CFMX provided a CFCONSTRUCTOR
>tag like BlueDragon does, but if I want to write OO code, I'll use an OO
>language. If I want to be able to mix procedural and OO code to my liking,
>I'll use CF.
>
>Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
>http://www.figleaf.com/
>phone: 202-797-5496
>fax: 202-797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
