I did java software development for a good year plus, OO RPG (that's right boys and girls - I said "RPG"!), and have read a dozen or so odd books on Object Oriented Design and Patterns...... to be honest, that's a tough call. I do plan to write a white paper as well as slides and code for a CFUG presentation (all sometime by the end of the summer). In the meantime, I can point you to what I consider the best book (and best Pattern Methodology I've seen): "Streamlined Object Modeling" by Jill Nicola, Mark Mayfield, and Mike Abney (Prentice Hall). Their patterns are EXCELLENT, and the book is mostly theoretical, but in a way that is understandable not only to real world developers, but clients, too!
~Simon Simon Horwith Macromedia Certified Instructor Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer Fig Leaf Software 1400 16th St NW, # 500 Washington DC 20036 202.797.6570 (direct line) www.figleaf.com -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:14 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do? As stated in a previous email. "A Computer Science Tapestry" by Owen L. Astrachan Copyright 1997 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072465360 I am not recommending the book for OO design. The book is useful for new programmers who want to learn both programming concepts and OO techniques. If you only know CF, then it would be a fine book to read. However, if you already program in a procedural language and are looking to make the jump to OO, then I would not recommend this book. 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: Cantrell, Adam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:09 AM > 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 > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.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
