Thanks for that...
A lot of experience talking!
I, too, had a long "discussion" with Sean Corfield about the lack of
Null in CF -- I was trying to wriet a general-purpose DB client in
CF/Java.
So, I prolly can't do the whole job in CF (only) but will need an
assist from Java to do some things beyond CF's capability.
But, could some of these "things" be standardized/codified in Java,
then invoked from CF -- then at some point folded into the CF language
implementation..
AFAIK, this is the approach that BD takes to their implementation of
CFML (and their extensions).
Dick
On Jun 28, 2004, at 6:34 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote:
> > But I also
> > understand
> > their advantages -- often the quickest, least manpower
> > intensive way to
> > get from A to B.
>
> Damn straight.��Can you imagine being the guys who created UNIX 35
> years ago
> and had to build the first C compiler with friggin' assembly?
>
> > All things considered, can I create a reasonable Java program
> > (mainly)
> > in CF.
>
> Sure, as long as the Java program needs to run in an environment that
> CF can
> handle, which currently is a J2EE web application, and that's it.
>
> > Stated another way, could CF be a "RADD Java development
> > language" for
> > the rest of us?
>
> Absolutely not.��CF is nothing more than a simplified way to tap into
> the
> power of J2EE web applications without having to really get down and
> dirty
> with them.��CF can't do even a minute fraction of what Java can
> do.��That
> being said, I'd consider the job CF does within it's realm of
> expertise to
> be pretty good, it's just a very small piece of the Java universe.
>
> Even within that realm, CF has some significant lack compared to Java,
> though the simplification that it provides over Java makes those
> shortcomings mostly "overlookable".��For example, I might bitch and
> moan
> about lack of 'null', interfaces, or method overloading, but I'll
> take what
> CF has over manually making DB connections and creating prepared
> statements
> longhand any day of the week.
>
> > Isn't that the main reason that IBM is remarketing CFMX?
>
> No idea.��J2EE is definitely a "big deal", and CFMX is in a position
> to make
> someone a lot of money if it's developed and marketed correctly.��I
> can't
> imagine IBM has any intentions other than to package it along with
> it's J2EE
> servers so that I can tout better ease-of-use and RAD out of the box
> that
> competing servers (which only offer JSP and Servlets).
>
> Cheers,
> barneyb
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
