> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of John Paul Ashenfelter > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Witnessed the power of CF > > On 11/8/05, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
I would argue that the "simple" (non recorded) macros in Office also require some rather advanced concepts to understand and construct. Using objects is, fundamentally, already a sophisticated (dare I say "advanced") concept. To leverage things not in the core language is a sophistication no matter how things are done. > > 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 don't think I ever disagreed with that. My point however is that the core difficultly level is different. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter how easy external resources make something there's a core approachability of the thing that can be examined. I feel we are simply presenting two completely different things. You're discussing from a pragmatic perspective while I'm discussing from a foundational perspective. > > 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? I suppose in a way... but not exactly. The point (I really wasn't arguing) is that CF was designed day one, from the ground up: +) To accomplish with one tag the most common web application tasks. +) To be human readable. +) To allow knowledge of the rules and syntax of HTML to be transferable to the CF experience. These weren't accidents, these were conscious decisions. And they had both positive and negative ramifications (for example CF has struggled with its "white-space problem" since the beginning). However the major negative of this approach (at least in my opinion) has always been the impression that CF isn't a "real" programming language. That it's a "prototyping" tool or otherwise not worthy to be trusted as a real language would be. As you note ASP's design had different goals. ASP was design, explicitly, to allow Windows developer's (VB developers mostly) to transition easily to web application programming. ASP uses the same objects and many of the same syntax and concepts. Again, these decisions had both positive and negative results. For ASP one the main negatives was that the language ended up harder to learn for novices. Its audience was experienced programmers. (This can be seen in the supporting aspects of the engines as well. For example compare exception information across the two platforms across versions. ASP exceptions, really until .NET, were obtuse and difficult to understand. CF exceptions, from the start, were designed to be read and understood by novices.) > > 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. Yes - and when we talk about MS developer's I'm behind you 100%. When we talk about HTML developers or graphic designers the audience changes and so does the best tool for them to use. > 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. Adding tag libs can make some things easier... but there's still a fundamental aspect of a language like JSP that can't be "patched" like that. > > 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? You're going around in circles. I'm not talking about the same things you are. Your propensity to cite third-party resources actually bolsters BOTH our positions. Yours in that the resources are readily available to make the job easier AND mine that the job wasn't as easy as it might have been to begin with! > > 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. Who was arguing that CF is better than ASP? Certainly not me! You seem to want to fight on this... but we still seem to be having two different conversations. My position is that CF presents an easier way to perform tasks for a certain audience than ASP. The opposite, that CF presents a more difficult way to perform tasks for certain other audiences is also true! My position is that CF was designed to be easy, accessible, and fast to novices while ASP was designed to enhance skill and concept transfer from more experienced developers. Why must your position be so black and white? "Better" or "worse"? CF is vastly superior to ASP in some cases and vastly inferior in others. It's a difficult truth to define in detail (since it will change depending on who is doing the evaluation and with the task at hand) but clearly a truth nonetheless. Jim Davis ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
