> > Seems to me that by it's very nature CF militates against > > the n-tier framework. CF is built to offer rapid development. > > I suppose you could achieve something like it in CF by > > separating the logical tiers within your CF app. So have > > included pages or custom tags or UDF's that handled for > > instance data acess or presentation or business rules > > only. The sort of thing that comes more naturally in OO. > > I'm sure someone will say we should be doing that anyway, > > but seems to me that's not CF's strength. > > It's not Java's strength, either. > > I think you are talking development METHODOLOGY, not language > functionality. > > You shouldn't be comparing languages on methodology, you > should be comparing methods. > > Like MVC, or FuseBox. > > But I will say there are more Java coders who understand > useful methodologies (it's part of their training) than cold > fusion SCRIPTERS. > > But well trained programmers will use tried-and-true > methodologies for development whatever the language and > environment they are in.
I have to disagree a little bit here. I believe that some programming concepts and methodologies are better suited to some specific languages or environments than they are to others. For example, the idea of an interface being a "contract", so to speak, is much stronger in your average OO language than it is in CF, because most CF code is purely procedural anyway. While you can implement the same concepts and methodologies in any language, probably, it may be more trouble than it's worth in some cases. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
