Even more to the point, from what I can tell many (even most?) CF applications *are* data entry or reporting applications. This seems to be changing over time but is still the case for a lot of apps. While I would be the first to say that anyone who wants to continue to be a programmer beyond the next few years absolutely needs to learn OOP, that doesn't mean that every app needs to be full-on OOP. Learning it is critical: the market has spoken and OO has won. I don't just mean in CF but in application development in general. Sooner or later (and probably sooner), folks without an understanding of OO are going to be marginalized. It's happening more slowly in the CF world than with other languages, but it will happen. It's a big challenge to be sure (at least it was and still is for me) but the elephant in the room cannot be denied.
But it isn't all doom and gloom. The bottom line is that OOP actually *is* incredibly powerful and that the effort put into learning it *does* make one a better programmer as well as being more "marketable". It might not seem like it durning the most painful moments in the long learning curve, but there is actually light at the end of the tunnel! (I see it up ahead, it's dim, but I see it!) ;-) On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Dan Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Sean brings up a really great point here. In very data centric > applications (bunch of forms and reports) a light mvc pattern to help > seperate your model and view might be all you need. Maybe only certain > features will follow a pattern. Its your job to learn the patterns and as > Sean said always be mindful of them. > > "if you have a very data-centric app with almost > no "behavior" (i.e., it's almost pure data entry or pure reporting) > then OO might be a waste of time for you - or maybe only parts of the > app will benefit from OO, perhaps at a very high level in the service > layer." > > Thank You > Dan Vega > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.danvega.org > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Thats why I tend to prefer code gen/frameworks that start with a >> description of the model and then gen any persistence required if your use >> case (read no DBA and a green field app) allows it. >> Best Wishes, >> Peter >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Brian Kotek wrote: >> >> This is caused in a large part by the code generators that introspect the >> database and generate CFCs. While those can be great time saving tools, the >> reality is that most people just take what gets generated and then run with >> it without thinking further about what they're doing. >> >> This is why we get people with 5 CFCs for every single table in their >> database, and why people think that just because they're following these >> "patterns" (bean, DAO, etc.) that they are doing OOP. If everything is >> data-centric and there is no actual behavior in the objects, then all one >> really has is a totally procedural, data-centric application that has been >> shoved into CFCs. It really ends up being the worst of both worlds: all the >> complexity of OO with none of the benefits. >> >> Hal is completely correct that we need to get away from the fixation on >> data or slavishly following patterns without really understanding the >> tradeoffs involved. Each pattern has consequences, and not all of them are >> good. The unfortunate reality is that truly groking OOP takes a long time >> and a major shift in mindset. There's no easy route to getting there, but >> one route that is probably among the most difficult is to blindly apply >> patterns or let code generators "do the work" without truly understanding >> what's going on or why these patterns exist. >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Dan Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Adam, >>> I am sure you going to hear some slack for that but I am huge fan of what >>> you just said. In Hal Helm's presentation he noted that we really need to >>> quite being so data centric when thinking of OO development. MVC is a great >>> start for people to solve a specific problem but everyone really needs to >>> stop following everyone and thinking that 5 cfcs are OO development. I am >>> doing a lot of research at the moment about OO in other languages and hope >>> to share my findings soon. >>> >>> Thank You >>> Dan Vega >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://www.danvega.org >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Adam Haskell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> At the end of the day we all need to stop talking about DOA and Gateways >>>> and all this Database crap as much as we do. Its old, trite, and quite >>>> honestly doesn't make a hill of beans difference most of the time. >>>> Honestly, >>>> ask yourself, "How many applications would I have been completely screwed >>>> if >>>> I chose to split my gateway and DAO up, or vice versa?" If you have a use >>>> case for that please by all means share it I'd love to hear it. If all we >>>> are concerned about is DAO or gateway then chances are something else, much >>>> more important, is being overlooked (not pointing fingers at anyone here :) >>>> ). If all you are doing is a large reporting app chances are you don't need >>>> to be doing complete OO anyway, yes I know sacrilege. Its true though >>>> ColdFusion is perfect for reporting without the heavy OO we try to apply to >>>> it in too many cases. Thinking back through some of the reporting apps I >>>> did >>>> and shoehorning them into an OO architecture I can confidently say I should >>>> have stuck with a light version of MVC and moved on. >>>> >>>> Adam Haskell >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
