misuse of terms is common everywhere though. In my opinion, those CFers integrating with Java JAR heads are most likely going to be coming from a CS background or basis and will realise this and overcome it. Given that CF possess, as noted above, a 'great learning curve', many CFers will not be integrating with Java folks and most likely will not even see a POJO. To me this will keep perfect CS jargon an arms length away in the CF world. Having consistent documentation using the correct terms would go along way, but forums such as this one can still prevail, eh? Having a mathematics background I see vocabulary misuse quite often, especially in the business world. When was the last time you heard, 'We have an infinite supply of widgets'? Hello! Infinite? I would not want to own a business with an infinite supply of anything, just apply the laws of supply and demand and you will understand why. LOL! Yeah, this used to bother me, but its inescapable it seems. DK
On 6/21/05, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/20/05, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just playing a little devil's advocate here... > > Where's the >:-) > > > While, yes, this is the computer science term and, when used in that > > explicit context the common usage in CF is wrong, do the CF Docs present > > themselves in the context of computer science? More importantly should > > they? > > Well, that's a good question. The docs do need to be clear but in my > opinion CFers would be better served by consistent use of terms, i.e., > consistent with the computer science background that most enterprise > programmers have. That way you can have conversations with Java > developers and work with them and integrate with them, without > constantly bumping into terminology problems. Not every CFer needs > that but for those that do, it wouldn't serve to have two sets of > terminology within CF. We already have some basic problems with CFCs > in that "this" means public scope (unlike Java and C++) and "private" > really means protected. Those we can't fix but we can at least be > honest and recognize that we know these are not the norm... > > > I guess in the end I'm just having trouble with coming up with another > > simple term that can both describe and label these scopes. For example > you > > could correctly say "values exist across multiple requests" but you > can't > > reasonably call those scopes "Existent variables". > > Mostly, in other languages there is the concept of the lifetime of a > variable. Shared scopes can all easily be described in terms of > lifetimes. > > > So far I think that "Shared" works best... but isn't nearly as > descriptive > > I agree. > -- > Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ > Team Fusebox -- http://fusebox.org/ > Got Gmail? -- I have 50, yes 50, invites to give away! > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:210112 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
