Yeah, I can think of lots of ways to use CFCs that don't fit into the norm of OO development. I have been 'guilty' of using CFCs in this way in the past, and have been very effective in doing it.

At their simplest, it's very easy to see CFCs as a collection of functions, of a function library.

There is nothing intrinsically OO about a function library, so there is no reason why CFCs should be required to be seen as purely OO tools.

While it may not appear to 'hurt' anyone, it is very easy to underestimate the effect of many people on a 'good idea' thaat gets the 'This is not OO' treatment.

It takes a pretty resilient type of person to post more than once or twice if their ideas are somewhat radical and I think it's in the interests of everyone if we avoid that.

Spike

Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC wrote:
I can't speak to "OO Fervor" cuz I ain't been payin that much attention... maybe it's been fervently OO in here...

My post was just meant to indicate that no matter HOW you use CFCs, there's going to be an element of OO in them. Not only that, but it'll never heart anybody to learn something new.

I never meant to push anything on anyone... and, like I said, I still have a completely procedural site. I still write code (lots of it published on my blog even!!) that's procedural.

However, I still contend and will until someone gives me a reason to quit, that regardless of how you implement them, there are intrinsically OO aspects involved when you develop with CFCs, that that fact should be recognized when they're being discussed.

Anywho...

J

On Apr 4, 2005 10:56 PM, *Spike* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

    As much as I like OO and as much as I think it's a good thing, I've been
    around the houses enough times to know that pushing one mode of thinking
    doesn't tend to foster too much innovation.

    CFCs are very capable of being much more flexible than just OO in their
    implementation and as long as people continue to cajole those who ask
    questions into thinking in an OO way, innovation is going to suffer.

    I vote for a scaling back of the "OO is the only way" attitude that this
    list seems to have adopted recently. It often doesn't provide the
    answers that people have asked for and it probably kills alternative
    possibly better suggestions.

    It reminds me very much of the religious fervor that usually surrounds
    fusebox. Again, I think fusebox is great, but I want to constantly
    explore new and innovative ways of thinking. As long as there is this
    overbearing insistence on OO thinking I don't think that is going to
    happen.

    my 2 c

    Spike




--
Continuum Media Group LLC
Burnsville, MN 55337
http://www.web-relevant.com
http://www.web-relevant.com/blogs/cfobjective ----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email.


CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

-- -- -------------------------------------------- Stephen Milligan Code poet for hire http://www.spike.org.uk

Do you cfeclipse? http://cfeclipse.tigris.org



----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to 
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the 
email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting 
(www.cfxhosting.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]




Reply via email to