> Two thoughts on that perspective. First, since we all know > we are using the better platform wouldn't it be nice to get > others interested. I mean maybe Java developers looked at > CF before and didn't like it for whatever reason. However, > now that CFMX sits on top of J2EE they might take another > look. It would be nice if CFCs didn't turn them off when > they aren't that important the CF development anyway.
Well, if my background was primarily as a Java developer, or Smalltalk or any other OO language, I might feel the same way. I mean, I've always thought that CFML is, well, ugly. If you're doing anything other than pure presentation logic, it's ugly and kind of clunky, but it still gets the job done. I've also been pragmatic enough (I think) to not care too much about that, but a lot of programmers are very concerned with elegance in syntax, in addition to the elegance of the general solution. I don't know how much you can do to convince those people that your platform is better (or even good). Besides, this is like religion - everyone thinks they're following the one true path. The difference between me and most others is that I don't have the "true faith" - I'm willing to jump ship, if I find something that makes a difference where it matters - the bottom line. For general web applications, I haven't found anything that I think is better in the majority of cases. > If you ask me the big deal is <cffunction> not <cfcomponent>. I agree with that, if you want to focus on the CFML language itself. I think that CFCOMPONENT is more important in the long run, since it bundles the functionality to allow you to publish a web service or to publish data to Flash. In that sense, who cares if it's OO? > Finally, if CF is indeed better than those other platforms, > why is MM trying to morph CF into those other platforms by > introducing pseudo OO features and promising more later? I don't know how to answer that, except to say that I'm free to ignore these pseudo-OO trappings (or at least not take them too seriously) and treat CFML as a procedural language, like we've been doing all this time. In a real OO environment, I don't think you could do that - or if you could, it wouldn't be worth the effort. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
