Sorry to jump in here... I just graduated with a BS in CS and found the following book one of the better books in regards to designing object oriented software..
http://www.bookpool.com/.x/njiqhqe96i/ss/1?qs=020174225x&Go.x=10&Go.y=1 The book is excellent from design to implementation and everything in between. HTH Mike -----Original Message----- From: Cantrell, Adam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:09 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do? Which book is that you're referring to, or can you recommend a solid OO design book? Seems like a lot of crap out there. Adam. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:55 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do? > > > 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 > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
