Generally speaking, CS programs tend to teach programming using C++, which has both constructors and destructors. However, most programs do try to teach the concepts separately from the language. From my OO text book I see the following...
The object takes responsibility for everything that happens to it, from the cradle to the grave. At its birth, a special member function called a constructor, is called, and at its demise, a second member function called a destructor is called. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ V: 415-577-8070 F: 415-341-8906 P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:04 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do? > > 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 > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
