>> I actually think the code is horribly obtuse
I thought so too when I was first looking at it (at the beta stage) but
it's really just a different way of doing it. It took me a while to twig
that it was more similar to a VB app than a scripted dynamic page.
>> and there seems to be a lot of low-level machinery in that page just
to bind data!
aye. there is and that's the good thing about it. It's all done for you.
At design time, drag the control onto your page, set some properties (or
script the values) and that's it. You can still hook into it and mod it
at runtime too. and you can make your own custom controls. And you can
easily access the controls events and run server code as easily as
sub myTextbox_onChange
'-- code here
end sub
(but this can also be a weakness)
No writing convoluted JS and the mix of HTML, server side code, et al.
CFIMPORT of taglibs are a good start and I'd like to see more of that
but the programmers access to these ASP controls are dead easy. the next
version of CFGRID and CFFORM might be getting there too (here's hoping).
eg: I've just had a week of spaghetti nightmare where CF was dynamically
writing JS and div innerHTML content at runtime with "chicken and the
egg" problems all the way through. The only thing that saved me was
CFSAVECONTENT. Real messy.
and besides, isn't there a lot of the same "low-level machinery" behind
Flex's MXML? It's obviously a good idea, not least for the productivity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sitting here employed as a CF programmer, not an
ASP one. Sure I'd like to see some ASP.NET ideas in CF but for me the
ultimate web platform is more like Flash remoting than either CF or ASP.
... but that's getting OT, yes?
cheers
barry.b
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 30 April 2004 4:14 AM
To: CFAussie Mailing List
Subject: [cfaussie] RE: Cold Fusion vs ASP
On Apr 29, 2004, at 7:03 AM, barry.b wrote:
> hmmm... a bit thin on real ASP.NET stuff (page 8 and only selected
> bits).
> It's pretty obvious the articles author (BF) isn't known as an ASP
> programmer...
I hadn't read it in detail - I just remembered that Ben had written
such a comparison.
> I also meant the seperation of server side code and presentation that
> (IMHO) is the neatist around and beats hands-down OTT methodologies of
> FuseBox or Batfink or whatever (see code below).
Hmm, I actually think the code is horribly obtuse and there seems to be
a lot of low-level machinery in that page just to bind data! CF simply
binds a query to a data grid by name without page load methods and
other binding calls...
<cfquery datasource="..." name="dataset">
...
</cfquery>
<cfform ...>
<cfgrid query="dataset" name="grid" ... />
</cfform>
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"There are no solutions, only trade-offs."
-- Thomas Sowell
---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia
http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia
http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
