"procedure based gumby" lol nice one Scott..
<CF_OOP>... i love my OOP and i love my CF ...</CF_OOP> something to cool things down... http://www.yaromat.de/macos8/ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Scott Barnes Sent: Tuesday, 29 June 2004 3:43 To: CFAussie Mailing List Subject: [cfaussie] Re: this Mark M wrote: > Taco (and anyone else for that matter). > > I *highly* suggest, if you are going to undertake OOP programming in CFMX, go take some Java, C++ (pick an > OOP language) training course. > So your basically recommending a developer go learn another language that *is* OOP, then come back to Coldfusion MX which *isn't* and apply the same fundamentals you have learnt with your "is a" langauge to one that "isn't a" but "has" some concepts that touch on OOP? Just so they can feel good in their approach to OO style of development within CFMX? kind of like a OOP Facade in many ways? > You will gain alot more benefit training specific OOP practices under a real OOP language, that you will then be > able to take back to CFMX, rather than trying to 'discover' practices 'on the fly' so to speak. > Or you could end up conjuring up theories on how to make CFMX suite OOP concepts, but get more and more annoyed at how the pieces of the puzzles aren't fitting correctly - thus end up re-creating a framework that smells like an OOP based one but deep down you resent it for not being infact one. Sorry, i think its funny how OOP programmers preech to CFMX programmers with a level of contempt, simply due to the fact they started out as procedure based gumby. If i were to start tommorow on learning OOP and someone said to me go learn JAVA/C# etc first, then come back to CFMX and apply that same level of education to it? i'd ask the question "why".. I'd be more inclined to shift my hardcore logic into <insert your language> and keep the fluffy stuff / facade in CFMX. That way i'm not pissing my time up against the wall making a language do something its not capable of doing. Thats just me though - 1 Dreamweaver snippets master who has yet to experience the godly touch of a *real* OOP language. Scott. > No offense Taco, but this is a good example - given the conversation the other week about error codes vs. > exceptions. Given that I come from a 'standard' OOP software development backgroup, the debate about that > sort of thing had croppped up fairly early within my education. I know that I have my opinion on it, and how it > fits into the OOP structure, because I have the training in Java. > > Even 'basic' concepts of cohesion and coupling that most 1st year Java programmers simply know by instinct > (and if they don't, they damn well should) are not known by alot of CF programmers simply because they don't > have any experience with *real* OOP programming, and end up fumbling their way to the same conclusions. > > Obviously this is just my opinion, but in all seriousness, if you are going to do OOP development, then study and > OOP language, and bring the *theory* of it back to CF. > > I think you will find alot of things will fit in place nicely. > > Mark > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > W: www.compoundtheory.com > ICQ: 3094740 > > > Quoting Taco Fleur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >>Hi Andrew, >> >>I'm used to procedural programming and only started thinking a little OOP >>since CFMX, I'm in no position to make any comments or accept anyone's >>comments (since there are so many different opinions), I think only time will >>teach me in this matter.. >> >>T >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Tuesday, 29 June 2004 11:19 AM >>To: CFAussie Mailing List >>Subject: [cfaussie] RE: this >> >> >> >>I so laugh at this statement >> >>And I quote >> >>"Although putting data in the this scope is perfectly valid and will not >>cause any errors, it generally isn't seen as a good idea. The main reason >>being that you lose the ability to tightly control that data from within the >>CFC, so breaking the encapsulation. That leads to increased overhead when >>you try to maintain the code, because you can't just look at what's >>happening inside the CFC before making changes. You have to also look at >>where it is used and how it is used to make sure none of the data in the >>this scope is being added, modified or removed by external code." >> >>Then if you treat them as properties, then what is your problem:-) >> >>This is how OOP works in Java and .Net and should be the way developers >>treat them in coldfusion! As properties, then you would know that there is >>an external influence. Even if you had a get/set method then you would have >>the same problem, treat them as properties and you will not go wrong. >> >>Taco if your reading this, I suggest reading on how classes are used in Java >>and follow there guides on how they do it and apply these rules to your >>framework and what best suits you. >> >> > > >>Regards >>Andrew Scott >>Technical Consultant >> >>NuSphere Pty Ltd >>Level 2/33 Bank Street >>South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205 >> >>Phone: 03 9686 0485 - Fax: 03 9699 7976 >> >> >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ >> >>Register now for the 3rd National Conference on Tourism Futures, being held >>in Townsville, North Queensland 4-7 August - www.tq.com.au/tfconf >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ >> >> >> > > > --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
