and to support what Scott was saying, just look at the "opposition" - things like ASP.NET.
ASP classic (vbscript) was in many ways similar to CF5 - all the page processing and data logic in the page. looked messy, had limited code re-use, etc. ASP.NET now has UI objects (server and html controls that look very much like CF's taglibs) connected to "business objects" -namespaces of class files of objects compiled to DLL's why should the view (CFM) care how the data is got? that's why OO ideas are great to use. CFC's to the rescue. IMHO, Gary's right. A good programmer can pick up another language (just give 'em a book and some time) but teaching ideas like abstraction and encapsulation, API's, etc is not easy for those brought up on scripting. Me? I'm leaning heavily on my VB/VB.NET skills and the teaching of OOP for a few years. I really do beleve OO "ideas (even lite versions) are the way to go. taking it to the UI is even smarter. just my 2cents barry.b -----Original Message----- From: Scott Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 30/07/2004 3:20 PM To: CFAussie Mailing List Cc: Subject: [cfaussie] Re: the big oo train, on the right track? Dude, Have a coke and a smile, and calm down :) I actually understand reasons why Gary would go down that path, having hired a few CF'ers over the years myself, i've found it frikin frustrating as all hell to seperate the code monkeys from the code-wannabes. Just because they bought Ben Fortas latest book, doesn't mean they'll be qualified to do the job. Having a Java/C++ background would gain you more respect yes, and I do agree that we should support CFMX community first, others last. But... If i were given the choice today in my current position, with my current project to hire a freshly out of CFMX UNI person or an old skool Java dude, i'd go with him. Why? he may be able to knock up a solution that coldfusion can talk to, which reduces the overall cubersome needs that CFMX may have had. For that, I'd love one on standby? fair call ? I think it comes to the resume pool on offer, if they are all CFMX vetrans, and one guys a Java legend but a CFMX newbie? and that java guy gets the job? well i'd tend to agree with some of the points outlined below. As to me thats just Java worshiping and really shitty deal to give to the CFMX community (ethics only). Business wise, probably smart investment :) i dunno, i think its a case by case basis and how much time/money you are prepared and spend on training. But it was a bold Statement from Gary to simply shoot that one out there and not give some more depth/scope to why. hehe Its different to see someone else getting attacked for their opinions for a change. Scott. Leon Seremelis wrote: >> 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. > > > > > Ok, I think this is just ridiculous! So you would rather get a Java > programmer to write Cold Fusion apps because he understands OO concepts? > Even though Cold Fusion is not OO? Okaaay! > > Why use CF at all then? Why not use a more conventional language to fit > your all-important OO paradigm? > > Good way to destroy the CF developer community mate. I'm sure many CF > developers who made the decision to specialize in CF and fought hard to > get CF recognized throughout the years will be absolutely overjoyed that > employers are adopting that attitude. Here's a crazy idea, why not just > explain the basic concept of object-oriented programming to the > developer and show how you are applying it in Cold Fusion? It's not > rocket science. Wouldn't a CF developer be _more_ inclined to want to > learn how to use Cold Fusion's OO concepts in their work than a Java/C++ > programmer? What makes you think a pure OO programmer would _want_ to > learn and build pseudo-OO apps using a tag-based language? Would it > really challenge them in any way? Would you really be better off using them? > > But let me guess, you wouldn't primarily consider yourself a CF > programmer, you'd be one of those that considers himself one of the > old-school gurus who's such a master at understanding the fundamental > logic of programming that he could not only pick up any programming > language with ease but modify it in such a way that they could become > kings of their own castle. What happens when you leave your job and the > company hires a Cold Fusion programmer to try to figure out what the > hell you are actually trying to do in that mess of code you have created > that is a mix of frameworks and paradigms that have little resemblance > to what they would consider Cold Fusion code. > > It seems many of you "experts" are troubled by the stigma CF has in the > greater developer community. I think unfortunately this is a big reason > many of you are jumping over yourselves to try to force CF into the OO > box in the first place. Simply because of the perception that by doing > this you will be considered more "serious" developers by your peers. > > That said, I'm all for adopting OO concepts in Cold Fusion when it > provides a definite advantage. But excluding developers with only CF > experience when building CF apps is not only ridiculous but plain > destructive to the CF community. > > </rant> > > Leon. > --- 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/
