I think the exact opposite. CFC's have increased my code reusability, which significantly speeds up my development time. Not to mention the ease of maintenance that it brings to the table. Old-school "spaghetti code" isn't going to save you any time when it comes to maintenance and portability. I'd argue that CFC's speed up the rapid development that we've all come to love about CF.
I also don't think that CFC's are that difficult to learn. Just like regular coding, it takes time to learn the most efficient way to get your result, but the basics are not that daunting. Anyways, that's my (differing) opinion. > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:50 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: CFC's > > I came across this post where people were discussing the use of smith as an > alternative to CFMX. Anyways, I was wondering what other peoples thoughts on > the subject were. I have to agree that Macromedia Coldfusion is kind of getting > away from what made CFML so popular and that was rapid developement. It > seems that it is taking me twice as long to write alot of the code (using CFC's) > then it did before hand, and the complication level has also increased. I am afraid > to look at CFMX 8 as I feel that OO is the way CF is going. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:263735 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
