On 11/8/05, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Sorry - I'm going to fight the HTML this time. I'm a plain-text snob.)
> ;^)
>
> Actually you claimed I said "setting properties" was advanced, I didn't. I
> said that finding/knowing which object to use in the first place was "rather
> advanced". But leave that, it's not important.
And I'm saying that finding/knowing the object is no harder in ASP
than in CF. You look at some docs, a quick google and you're done. I
refuse to accept that finding documentation for a simple task is
"rather advanced".
> The task itself (or any piece of it) is not advanced. But the concepts
> behind the task in ASP are "rather advanced" - to understand what's going on
> you need to get, even if only at the most basic level, several programming
> and OO concepts.
You're seriously arguing that you have to know programming concepts
and some OO to use ASP? You have to know a little about scripting for
MS -- that's it. There's no more programming concepts or OO than doing
simple macros in MS Office. If you're *using* ASP, then you're pretty
much certainly in the MS world... and it follows that you'd have a
basic understanding of how MS does things -- even if you aren't a
programmer.
> Are you suggesting that ASP is "easy" because Google exists? I would argue
> a subtle distinction: Google makes using difficult things easier, but it
> doesn't actually make the thing easier.
No, I'm suggesting that anybody who needs to accomplish a simple task
can choose their language, do a little searching, and solve their
problem.
> I'm also not saying there is a huge difference. I'm not suggesting that,
> for example, that ASP is "twice as hard" as CF - only that there is a
> difference (any difference) for the audience in question. I'm suggesting
> that, in the case described (an HTML designer wanting to do some simple
> tasks) that ColdFusion provides the capabilities required for those tasks
> without any additional conceptual understanding required (or implied).
Is this a "CF is tag-based so it's easier" argument?
> My points are not about the real world practicalities or shortcuts available
> but the paradigms involved. At the core is this language "easy" to
> understand? Easy for who? Easier than what? Why?
As far as a paradigm goes, if you're using ASP, it's fair to say you
know a little about the MS paradigm, and ASP fits right into it.
That's the whole point of the MS package -- skills are transferable
between apps b/c of tight integration.
Is it fair to say you're fundamental argument is "tag-based"
languagees are easier for HTML users to pick up than "object-oriented"
languages? I hope not, b/c one could extend that to argue that JSP
with taglibs is also easier for HTML developers, which I'd suggest is
not that case.
> Classic ASP has poor documentation (especially when it comes to objects
> available to do tasks) compared to CF, it just does. It stresses that you
> can get objects to do anything, but is a little stingy about specifying them
> (giving a choice on any topic when the criteria are beyond your
> comprehension is confusing and frustrating).
I just pulled out my copy of ASP in a Nutshell (O'Reilly, 1999) and it
had a discussion of all the objects, sample code, and a bit on the CDO
objects. Not hard to find that documentation at all. And 3 of the top
5 hits in google give me basically the same info. Are you suggesting
that users are limited to the documentation that comes with the tool?
> I LOVE the MSDN library (it's my HTML, DHTML and JavaScript reference of
> choice) but MS was never as clear in its ASP documentation as Allaire was in
> the CF.
>
> CF presents a shallower learning curve in this respect. You have to
> remember, for example, "CF + concept". "CFMail" sends mail, "CFQuery"
> performs queries, "CFoutput" outputs data. You might get confused by
> synonyms or entirely new concepts ("CFLock" anyone?), but care has been
> taken to make things as "discoverable" as possible in the core language.
So CFUPLOAD will upload my file? How about generating some visuals --
CFCHART? CFGRAPH? CFREPORT?
> I really do agree with the rest of what you say. But I feel like your
> getting hung up on the example (sending email) when I was trying to talk
> about the concepts.
It sounds like you're saying CF is tag-based so it's easier and the
docs are a little better. That seems to be a weak argument for it
being better than ASP.
--
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
(blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com
(email) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------
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]
