> there is already the capability to to that sort of thing usinf CFFUNCTION
> create your own library if you need to.
Trust me, we *have* done this, as much as possible.
> but then again, your making a very easy language difficult again.
But it's *not*. There is nothing intrinsically *easier* about cluttering
up your page with <cf> every second breath. It'd be *easier* if it was
similar to one of the other coding languages out there. It's *not*
mark-up, and it doesn't behave anything *like* mark-up. There's no benefit
to it *looking* like mark-up.
In fact given how often I see people on the CF forums @ Macromedia trying
to nest CF tags within other CF tags... I think it's probably
counter-intuitive to present code and result in the same format.
> The
> advantage of CFML is that it IS tag based and IS easy to write and read. If
Any developer who didn't start with CF is not going to agree with you there
(except for Sean ;-).
for (i=1; l < 10; i++){
writeOutput("[#i#]<br />");
}
Is *much* clearer than
<cfloop index="i" from="1" to="10">
<cfoutput>[#i#]</cfoutput><br />
</cfloop>
If we're coming from a web monkey who only knows HTML, the fact that they
get to keep wearing out their angle-bracket keys is not going to be any
particualr gain for them. They're still going to have to learn how to
program.
And if they are a webmonkey and have some programming experience, it's
likely to be in Javascript. Don't see too many angle brackets in there.
The whole "angle brackets are easier" is just a great steaming load of
ballocks (although dunno why your ballocks would be steaming ;-), which
doesn't stand up to any scrutiny @ all.
> you start going towards a script based language, then you start to loose the
> really cool stuff like cfoutput, cfquery and so on.
Why? Every other language seems to be able to manage.
--
Adam
---
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/
