> I like strong typing, but I think ColdFusion isn't the place for it.
>
I would like to se it as optional, maybe within a block of code or a
CFC. In fact, a CFC is a very logical place for strong typing (and a
lot of other things that would make CF more Java friendly).
> ColdFusion has a history of trying to maintain backward compatibility.
Yes and no -- each major release of CF has had compelling and valuable
new features -- not to use these when needed, is a failure to exploit
the tool. If a user wants to code an app that runs on CFMX 6.1 as well
as 4.5, he can do what he does today -- not use the features that are
not backward compatible.
But, as Apple learned, sooner or later you must break the chains of the
past and use the features available -- else we'd all be coding Octal
Absolute.
> Also, one of the tenants of CF is that it is "typeless" language
> (validation portion of cffunction and cfargument aside)....so I doubt
> we'd ever see it.
>
So, where necessary in CF, it is a good thing -- I just would like to
see it optional for other parts of the language
> Yeah, it'd allow neat stuff like method overloading, etc., but if you
> want to move to a strongly typed world, and truly take advantage of
> what that gives you, shouldn't you be using Java to begin with?
1) Don't you get overloading capability with the JavaCast() function --
at least when you drop into Java.
2) When coding with <cfscript>, say some CFCs and using some CFObjects
-- the code begins to strongly resemble Java source without the
definitions/terms of class, public, static, void, etc. (Of course, you
need to drop into <cfml> with (</cfscript>) to get the full advantages
of CF's query class, loop class and output class)
Aside: When can we expect CF language support for ="" !=, <=, >= ?
3) My gut tells me that there is a need for a middle ground between a
procedural language like CFML and an OOP language like Java.
4) A recent article suggested that CF was a way to rapidly get a (web)
application running, until it could be programmed "Right" in Java. IMO,
this is folly -- there will always be more pressure to implement new
apps, than to expend the resource to recode existing apps).
5) Aren't the people developing/using machii, in reality, trying
reforge the use of CF (and other languages) into something more like
Java
6) Wouldn't it be beneficial to everyone, MACR & NA included, If the CF
Language were extended to be more "Java-like"? This is rhetorical,
because, in fact, this has already occurred with the aforementioned
CFCs.
7) I am in the process of learning Java, as a means to an end. I doubt
that I will ever become a Java programmer, nor take full advantage of
the language (similar to my abilities with ASP, PHP, etc.). But here's
an interesting question: Would I be better served, trying to bend my
CF code to be more Java-like; or to write procedural code in Java and
(mostly) ignore its OOP capabilities?
Dick
>
> IsNull() would be pretty handy, though!��Ben F....anyone else from
> MACR reading....can get this on the list? :)
>
You also need: <cfset x = NULLl />
> -Joe
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
