to throw in my own 2 cents, I can totally understand where Gary is coming from here. It boils down to having the knowledge and experience to be able to communicate with the fellow developers that utilise OO concepts.
Nobody here would whine if I said 'we use Fusebox, so when we hire, we look for people with Fusebox experience' now would they? So when Gary is saying 'we use OO in our shop, so we are only looking for people who can talk OO', it's understandable, as he wants people who can devlop alongside the current system of development at their development center. OO is the way of the ColdFusion future, regardless of whether or not people like it. Mark On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:04:59 +1000, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gary Menzel wrote: > > > Again - coming into a conversation late - but noting something of interest.... > > > > > >>Don't try to learn OOP using only ColdFusion because there are a few things > >>that don't work 100% OO in ColdFusion. Once you understand how OO > >>programming works you shouldn't have too much trouble applying it to > >>ColdFusion. > > > > > > I completely agree with this. Which is why we are now intending to > > only hire CFMX programmers who have had an OO background (in things > > such as Java/C++ etc. etc.). > > > > With this type of grounding, I can get them to learn a new syntax > > (even if they aren't all that familiar with CFMX). The focus is the > > paradigm then - not the language. > > > > hhmmm.. i'd be interested to see how this pans out Gary. No offence and > without turning this into a debate, i'm not convinced thats the right > attitude. I say this, as i know a few old skool OOP guys, and while they > understand the flavour of CFMX, they aren't as effecient or CFMX OO > centric, as think about it, you take away all the purty effects of OOP > and reduce it down to just basic OO, they could fall flat on their butts > because they've spent so many years using various other routines as part > of their knowledgebase (ie events, interfacing, method overloads etc). > > It'd be an interesting experiment to put a Java/C++ guy fresh out of the > old skool OOP, against a CFMX OO 6month vetran, and see who comes out > ontop? I have no idea how that'd pan out, but i'd love to see/hear > anyone who has? > > Patterns imho, are the key to both being a success. If someone said to > me "i know dick about CFMX, but i've studied patterns" and could produce > some examples of them using such patterns in other languages, i'd > personally sit down and train them on CFMX to the point were they'll end > up teaching me. :D > > I say this, as if they can look at a problem, go to a pattern library, > pick-out some useful ones to approach the problem and then apply them, > GOLD. Just because a Java Monkey has 10 years exp in OOp doesn't mean > he'll know enough about CFMX to apply a CFMX friendly methodology to it. > > But I do take your point on the whole, well atleast they aren't monkeys > and know enough about OOP to atleast stand a better chance then someone > who doesn't. > > I guess i'm pro-CF programmer then others, as i feel we could really do > with some more and the ones we do have need our support. > > Regards > Scott Barnes > > > > --- > 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/ > -- E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.compoundtheory.com ICQ: 3094740 --- 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/
