At 06:59 PM 7/10/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Remember that when you are taught traditional programming, you are >taught to understand basic concepts of programming that are language >independent. Further, you are taught how these different independent >concepts are implemented differently in different languages. This >enables you as a programmer to easily move from language to language by >simply learning new syntax, not entirely new concepts. This wouldn't be >possible if each language used the same terms for different things.
This is a very good point. I believe the most important thing you (or someone) had said about constructors vs "code in a CFC that isn't in a method" is that constructors are a method. By definition, code we have been calling constructor for a CFC is not in a method. I'm thinking back to my schooling and I don't remember being taught about constructors in a language-independent manner. My OO textbook, which discusses four programming languages (Smalltalk, C++, Object Pascal, and Objective C) only references constructors in regards to C++, which makes me think that they may not be part of the other languages, which means they are not automatically inherent in the paradigm. If that is true, it shoots holes in your above argument. But, I haven't done enough OO design / programming (Other than limited Java) to make that judgement. -- Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Web Developer? Contact me! AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773 -- My CFMX Book: <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072225564/instantcoldfu-20> My Books: http://www.instantcoldfusion.com My Band: http://www.farcryfly.com ______________________________________________________________________ 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
