Sorry Steve, But I have to agree with Spike on this one.
(I'll buy you a beer later) I think the point has been made that OO has pretty much found it's way into every aspect of software development. There is a good reason for this (and again - not going into the procedural vs. oo argument all over again). Personally, I think you will find that the evolution of CF development will be towards a OO based approach. I think you will find that CF will still support the procedural implementation, but looking at features introduced in BlackStone (particularly the event gateway) - OO is going to be the way to go. We can bitch about it all we like - about why OOP is bad, and why we hate it (personally I don't hate it, but we could bitch about it if we so chose), but in the end I think resitance will be futile - and we will be assimilated. Persoanlly, I think this will be a very good thing, as it will increse CF's 'street cred' in amongst other entrerpise (and non enterprise) software development fields, which atm it is sorely lacking (at least in my experience). Just my thoughts, Mark -- E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.compoundtheory.com ICQ: 3094740 On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:20:04 +1000, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Onnis wrote: > > > > > "but it certainly seems to have you pointing fingers and > > yelling at anything you can to apportion blame." > > > > From my experience, people who do this usually do it to justify themselves > > to their employer, or who ever it is that they are complaining to try and > > big note them selves as to say "this is crap. my system is soo much better > > so I am going to use mine" rather then working with what's there, developing > > a solution to the problem at hand and getting on with the job. > > > > Yelling at technology failures is what allows us to evolve. Just look to > the browser wars! can think of more if you like. > > Developers are egoistical by nature, as its a process in which we invent > technology (whether it be rolling existing technology around a principal > concept). So a lot of programmers will have that "mine is better > attitude" - hell you yourself have been guilty of that, and i know that > for fact :D > > > Personally I have seen allot of problems being posted in cfaussie, and most > > of them are problems that don't need to be problems cause people try to be > > tricky make problems more involved than they need to be. > > Thats debatable. If you want to just settle on a piss poor solution, and > someone is happy enough to pay you to do so, great, job well done. > > Its sadly, usually the case these days, but don't piss on people who > post their grievances to to CFAUSSIE, as they aren't trying to be > tricky, they are tying to adapt a solution to a painful problem. Its > what this forum really wasn't mmeant for. Heres a problem, heres my > objective, is it possible? test the theories out amongst peers, return > answer." > > > As they say, the most effective solutions are usually the simplest. > > > > So, here is my take on OOP > > I could of sworn an argument in the archives where you took the opposite > to this below, could be wrong but mute point anyway. > > > Although Coldfusion is on a JAVA base, it is JAVA that is an OOP language, > > where as Coldfusion is not. Macromedia developed Coldfusion as a <TAG> > > based language so that from a development perspective, all the grunt > > happened behind the scenes, and we, as developers didn't have to worry about > > that side of things as could concentrate on doing what we do, which is > > develop. > > > > I still don't know why this OOP thread keeps coming up when ColdFusion is > > NOT an OOP language. Although you may implement some OOP style of > > developing your applications, why do people still harp about Coldfusion not > > doing things that OOP languages can do. Well here is your answer. > > Coldfusion doesn't do allot of things accustom to OOP development cause it > > isn't an OOP language! Simple I know, but that's the truth of it. > > For starters the thread is titled "oo" object orientated, which loosely > put is CFMX. If people refer to OOP, its a simple technicality, but the > overall objective is met "we understood they are thinking in an OO frame > of mind". I think pointing out the difference is academic, as to some > people, who think they know what OOP is dont have a clue as to what > actually makes up the concept of OOP. > > > As many of the JAVA guy on here have said, if your gonna try develop in OOP, > > go learn OOP, but in the end you wont be able to develop Coldfusion > > applications in OOP, but you will be able to use the fundamentals of OOP and > > its structure to help better define your application frameworks and help you > > more understand application workflows. > > You've answered your own question, in that why do people keep putting > CFMX in an OOP thread. Because they are thinking in the mindset of > trying to apply OOP concepts to CFMX (ie patterns etc). > > > > > If you want to develop in OOP, then develop in JAVA or something. > > what about OO? where do i go for that :D > --- 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/
