On 7/7/06, Joe Rinehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anyways, all to say this: The XML syntax isn't necessarily easier or > better > > than CFML, but for what this, or other XML-based frameworks do for you, > the > > extra brain space is worth using these frameworks. > > Comparing XML to CFML is an excercise in futility - it's apples and > oranges, and I just don't think Claude or whoever gets that.
I remember on the CFEclipse list, someone saying how it would be easier to parse the CF code if it was XML compliant. I've started closing my cfsets, just because. ;-) Course, as we all remember, I like the cfscript notation, as it's sooo easy to translate to PHP, and vice versa (not to mention those quick //comments) :-P XML acts as a "metaprogramming" environment - a level at which you're > coding above the actual implementation language. What's nice about > XML in specific is the number of tools for manipulating it, both on > the IDE and standards (XSL, etc.) levels. This I'm interested in. I see MG "plays nice" with tartan, how interchangeable are these various frameworks? Are there folks onlist who are using the same CFC's say, with the "big 3"? Can you really use one frameworks XML files within another framework? Are there XSLT docs made for switching 'twixt XML reliant frameworks? Or is my idea of a framework a little nieve, thinking that it's really that easy to switch them around? I guess one of my concerns is, once I go the route of a framework, won't it be pretty difficult to share code with other folks, unless they use the same framework? Hopefully the the CFCs are a breeze, if you've built them right, but as much as we like to try to keep UI and core code divorced, they are integral to each other. So if I wanted to share a pice of code, along with it's interface, others would need to be running the same frameworks as myself, correct? ** This interface thing is getting to me now though. (I blame it on the fundamental theorem of calculous.) It seems to me that the UI REALLY effects the core code. I guess if you break everything down far enough, it could be pretty modular, but then you get into the situation where you've got so many little modules everything is sloooow. But really flexable! Like the "each datatype to it's own table" idea. And while comps are getting faster every day, what's fast today will be SCREAMING tomorrow, vs. slow today, "normal" tomorrow. Eh, there is no black and white. Why do we(I) try so hard to find it? Heh. Now I'm getting philosophical. I want more coffee. :D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:245715 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
