Ok, I'm not saying you should choose a CF coder straight out of Uni rather than a Java expert. But who learns CF in Uni anyway? Even introductory programming courses teach Java, or at least they did when I went there. Why? To give students a grounding in OO concepts. So, this hypothetical "CFMX UNI person" -if they exist- would have a good understanding of OO concepts anyway.
The point I wanted to make is that I think it is destructive to the CF community when employers think that they need to go down that path -especially when it's the CF guys doing all the fighting to get CF used in the first place. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-cfaussie- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes > Sent: Friday, 30 July 2004 3:20 PM > To: CFAussie Mailing List > 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 leave-cfaussie- > [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/
