Straight from the horses mouth -- as it were ;o). Very well put Ben. Thanks.
Cheers, Chris Ben Forta wrote: > Doug, > > You are confusing a few different ideas here I think ... > > Yes, there is a lot of chat nowadays about frameworks and methodologies and > the like. But that has nothing to do with CFCs really. Fusebox, for > example, existed long before CFCs were introduced. I think what you are > seeing is that many CFers have matured, their apps are more sophisticated, > they have been introduced to concepts and practices popularized buy other > languages, and they are trying to apply that thinking back to ColdFusion. > And that's great, if it works for you. If it does not, then do what you do > now. > > With the exception of a few features (creating web services, writing Flex > back-ends in CF, and working with event gateways, to name a few), CFCs are > entirely optional. Having said that, I don't believe that CFCs themselves > have introduced OOP type complexity. Sure, CFCs can be part of a more > sophisticated application architecture, but hey are also useful as an > organization mechanism when building simple n-tier apps. Look at it this > way, all of those <cfinclude> and Custom Tags that we built for years as a > way to organize our code, well, CFCs are often better suited for the task. > It's nothing to do with OOP if you don't want it to be. > > And as for "I am afraid to look at CFMX 8 as I feel that OO is the way CF is > going", fear not. We'll add object type functionality when and if it makes > sense, but we have no intentions of losing what made CF CF in the first > place, simplicity and productivity. > > --- Ben > > > > > > -----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. > > 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. 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. > Take a look at the CF community these days and most of what you'll find is > intellectual masturbation. 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. You have to wonder if at any point > these guys don't say, "Hmm, why don't we just use Java?" > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:263743 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
