well, C++ was a bastardized OO programming language in the first place. it
was made to be backwardly compatible with ANSI C, so they had to allow some
really funky crap into it.
i'm speaking from a Java standpoint. it's a B&D language, but a really good
teacher of OO principles.
your first paragraph still didn't address my issue. if you're subclassing
something that has functions you "won't need", you shouldn't be subclassing
it in the first place. and i never mentioned "saving space" in my argument.
game programmers excel at pushing as many instructions into as small a space
as possible. optimized code is NOT the "best" code, though. i have nothing
but respect for those folks that can cram a REALLY good game onto a
cartridge. however, they do not epitomize the "best programmers out there".
chris olive, cio
cresco technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crescotech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 8:49 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox [CF-Talk]
Forgive me if I am wrong, but when you create a structure in C++, you have
inherited bits of code that also go with this structure, when I include this
into many files all code gets compiled even all those attached to these
structures. Now if I don't need a certain function of this class then it
still gets compiled regardless, so how can this be saving space.
Because games programmers are the best programmers out there, they deal with
situations on a better level than any other programmer I have known. If we
talk about consoles, we are talking about very limiting memory/space to
write a game in. So these guyts know how to save space and optimise code
better than anyone else in the real world. And there isn't many that have
not achieved the same things a ms Application can do that is not in a games
system.
I used to program in 6502,6510, z80 and when things looked like moving a
little faster I got into C, however I could never really grasp the concept
of C++ when it was first introduced so I never really bothered to learn it.
I recall an Operating System that had more functionality than Windows 3.11
or windows 95, and fitted onto a 1megabit rom. Windows can't claim that now
can it, because of OO code becomes bigger by default:-)
regards
Andrew Scott
ANZ eCommerce Centre
* Ph 9273 0693
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Olive, CIO [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 September 2000 10:59
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox [CF-Talk]
OO is a good idea. in its place.
i fail to see how you can discount OO based on what "games developer"s say.
they're not the only ones that code.
i'd also be curious to see some evidence/support for your size/speed
argument. if you are subclassing objects that have methods or properties
that the subclass doesn't need, you should not be subclassing them. that's
an example of crappy coding technique, not an inherent flaw in a programming
methodology.
chris olive, cio
cresco technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crescotech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 7:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox [CF-Talk]
Why are people so hell bent on OO, lets face it OO seems to be a good idea.
But good ideas cost us in the long run. Lets look at c++ for instance,
before c++ was introduced programs where smaller memeory wasn't and issue
and hard drive space either was not an issue. Then somwhere along the lines
we began coding with OO, then we needed 10 times as much memory and now we
need thousands more hardrive space.
Ask a games developer what the prefer and you will find that they opt out of
oo big time, remember that when you inheret a class you inherit everything
about that class everytime you need it. So this means that the code runs
slower becuase it has more work to do, it becomes larger because it has more
code that is compiled that is maybe not needed.
With the web, we do not need OO and oo is not for the web.
regards
Andrew Scott
ANZ eCommerce Centre
* Ph 9273 0693
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 September 2000 08:54
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Fusebox [CF-Talk]
For one the more traditional development method
Like Fusebox, is a bit archaic, and it works but
(now again) depending on who you talk to, OO is
the wave of the future and Fusebox is definately
NOT OO.. So it just depends on what you like,
My opinon is object oriented programming done
properly, and iwth the proper environment (think
Java) It is a dream
Jeremy Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Sizemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 3:08 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Fusebox [CF-Talk]
I agree that we now need to turn this to "examples that work for me."
I am in the process of writing a "Development Guide" for our (soon to be)
Intranet, and I am very interested in what works for all these people that
don't practice FuseBox (I have no experience in FB, but looks pretty good
because I could just throw it out there and say do it). One aspect that I am
trying to build in to the methodology is the ability to deal with
applications created in DreamWeaver UltraDev (or other CF WYSIWYG editors).
- A large intranet will get these types of apps.
I like the idea of a sequential application tree (in FB) because it is more
like traditional application development (I'm the only CF developer on a six
person VB team - and I'm just learning CF). What are the advantages to not
creating architecture like this (and what else could I do)?
Paul Sizemore
Finish Line
www.finishline.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fusebox [CF-Talk]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>However, it, like fusebox takes a lot longer to do.
>
Can't we all just get along? Everyone should write however they want to.
Some of us actually find Fusebox much quicker to develop in. Others
don't. That will never change.
I'd personally prefer to see more discussion about different
methodologies, which might help all of us. Many allude to their own
methods, but concrete explanations are often missing. I've tried, and
failed, to make sense of CFobjects, for example. \
These discussions occur not because there is any single best way to
code, but because CF's ease of use has allowed a lot of people who are
not programmers by profession (or nature :) to get into web application
development, and many of us don't have the skills to create a method of
our own. I personally NEED some direction to make better code and look
for the gurus on these lists to help!
c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 for message encryption and authentication: USE PGP!
Comment: KeyID: 0x51046CFD
iQA/AwUBOckCKtaLYehRBGz9EQK3sACePIJHySnukw0Z6dYXzH5tL+8A514AoLNy
QQNl3xq93XjFEfmSuAZUWokI
=cZls
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
