> I am also very happy I don't have to write > lines of code like foo = (x++ == (row = y * 2)) ? --y + 4 : (x *= 4 == > row ? --row : row++ ));
But if you wanted to effect the same thing in CF, you'd have to write twenty-odd lines of code. All that nonsense might seem exactly like that to you (no disrespect meant at all when I say that: there's no reason for you to be able to understand it without prior knowledge), because you've come up on CF. But most people who have any previous coding experience will just look at it and go "ooh.. aah... yeah, got it", because it's familiar syntax. People with no coding experience are going to be just as lost with CF's version than they would be with the C/JavaScript/Java version. So there's two sets of people: 1) People with previous coding experience, for which CF is going to be at least quaint, and at worst not familiar 2) People with no coding experience, who are starting from scratch anyhow. Be it CF, or PHP, or ASP... samesame. > For those that say that ColdFusion is ugly and cluttered, I have to > disagree. The structure and the use of clear plain English tags makes it > very easy to go back and see what is going on. That's a good thing. Well I can't argue that. We'll have to agree to disagree. > If people go changing CF to make it more attractive to lovers of foo = > (x++ == (row = y * 2)) ? --y + 4 : (x *= 4 == row ? --row : row++ )); > then they'll lose people like me. I don't think anyone's advocating *change*, just expansion. I can't speak for you, but a person might equally not feel so comfortable with CF's foray into pseudo-OO with CFCs. Just because they're "a bit tricky" does that mean CF shouldn't have them? God knows what a similar person might think of some of the new features in the next CF version. CF has come up through the ranks of "web scripting" languages, and acquit itself well. No doubt. But it's making noises about making the move to "proper" programming language status, and accordingly, it should make some dispensations to people two are transmigrating from that parallel level on different platforrms. > While some snobby programmers might think that >= is better than GTE and It's not snobbery mate. What did you learn in grade school... ">=" or "GTE"? What the *hell* does "GTE" mean to anyone other than CF developers? It's a cringeworthy compromise that Allaire made to the fact they went the angle-bracket-for-every-instruction root, and could not - therefore - easily accommodate "real world" constructs like > and <. > not change, there will be plenty of new people like me who will jump on > board because it makes sense. I think you're selling yourself short. I think if you sat down in front of any of the other web-scripting options, you'd be just fine. 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/
