While the complexity of my CFML has certainly increased in the past several years, so has the complexity of the web applications I am building now.
To be honest the master/detail drill down and very basic crud stuff I used to do isn't really around anymore. Now application shave to integrate seamlessly into multiple environments, interface with other applications and services, and generally be much more intense (read enterprise level government development). No I'll grant that for those people that are out there still doing basic web sites and so forth, well, all the complexity is unnecessary, however, CF 8 will I am sure be backwards compatible for the most part, and you will still be able to write procedural CFML if that's your preference. Remember, no one is making you use OO principals. > -----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:263758 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
