Doug, Doug Brown wrote: > 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. > > I'm not an OO programmer, but I still reckon that "going OO" is the right path for CF to take. > Message: > > While more competition in the CFML market is a great thing, this engine won't > run any of the popular frameworks as it is missing one of the most important > features of CFML; CFCs!!! Think of saying you have developed a Java engine, > but it doesn't support user defined classes! Not much point. So yes, if all > an engine had to do was to support simple Tags and CFML functions, then of > coure it would be fast. > > Reply: > > Actually, I regard this as a Good Thing. CF is a champion for pounding out > small sites quickly. The good news here, is that CF still is very good at pounding out small sites. I think the idea that that CF has the potential for much, much more than creating small sites. It's got the capacity to build complex Web2.0-type applications. The OO features that have been added only help to further development in that direction. There's no rule that says you *have to* use them. > I'd go as far to say that in that capacity probably nothing can beat it. I > haven't seen anything that beats <cfquery> .... <cfoutput>. CFCs tried to > bring objects and OO to CF, and they've gone a long way to destroying the > principal strength of the language - simplicity. In what ways have they destroyed the language. I can still use simple coding techniques, just as I could with CF4.5 and CF5. The addition of the new techniques doesn't mean you have to use them. They're just additional tools in the tool box. > Take a look at the CF community these days and most of what you'll find is > intellectual masturbation. Hmm... that's a bit crude, if you ask me. When I look at the CF community today, I see folks collaborating and trying to make things better for other developers. I see more experienced developers trying to help out newer developers. I also see folks defending CF against PHP, Ruby and the like. > They're going down the same road Java went down recently. A proliferation of > frameworks, to the point where they have numerous ORMs and even a Spring > clone. I don't use a single framework in my coding, though I think I can see the benefit, I've just not spent the time to learn one. So again, just use the tools in the tool box that you need and ignore the rest. > You have to wonder if at any point these guys don't say, "Hmm, why don't we > just use Java?" > One of the beauties of CF is that you can intermix it with java, because the thing is written in java.... but you don't have to.
Cheers, Chris > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:263742 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
