On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:15 PM, bill[y] wrote: > I've preferred writing in cfscript ever since it came out. There's a > lot less keystrokes and cfscript is more readable; to mine eyes alone, > maybe. I like the brevity of cfscript vs. the more verbose tag based > expressions, and I'm looking forward to Centaur's improvements. I > wonder if it's gonna feel like Groovy?
I love cfscript. I write in it all day, every day. It flows. > Anyway, aside from documentation metadata and some hindered > functionality, what are the _real_ downsides of cfscript today ? None. > * Statically Typed Parameters ? * > http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4639 ("Uncle" Bob > Martin) > After reading this older article a while back, I started to seriously > re-think the importance of statically typed data in favor of loosely > typed data. The point that struck me about this article and comments > is that even though the compiler does type checking, you can still > write bad code. So, what does a compiler do for the quality of your > code? > > Also, what good is runtime checking of datatypes - could that be a > code smell? I'm starting to think that if I'm relying on the runtime > to make sure my app works, I'm being lazy. Like Bob mentioned above, > the more I unit test, the less I rely on the runtime to check my > stuff. Anyone else feel like this? God knows I love ducktyping. With a name like Quack, how can I not? :-) > * Access Control ? * > By default, a function (udf) in cfscript is public. There's no > _documented_ way to alter this access. It would be nice to make a > cfscript udf remote or private ... which brings me to another > quandary: Do we really _need_ private methods? Why? We absolutely _need_ private methods. I cannot fathom coding without them. It would be a great addition to cfscript to have that ability, for sure. > * Hindered Functionality ? * > cftransaction, cfquery, cfdump, cfstoredproc, etc., have no > _documented_ counterparts in cfscript. For me, this is the biggest > drawback. I know I can build tag-based wrappers and have cfscript udfs > call them. This is ok, but, what I'm also finding is that the overall > format of my code is inconsistent - I'll evolve a mishmash of cfscript > and cf tags ... not very pretty. The only tags I use on a regular basis are: cfcomponent, cffunction, cfargument, cfscript, cfquery, cfloop, cfoutput, cfdump. Virtually everything else is written in cfscript. My code is *extremely* consistent in this fashion. And since I'm > Any cfscripters out there or anyone that codes almost entirely in > cfscript? > It's really comical in a way, the fact that I rarely use anything other than cfscript. When forced to use tags, I actually have to stop and think about what I'm writing, and yet, the very thing that drew me to CF all those years ago (12+ years) was the fact that it was a tag-based language and easy for me to learn. I feel that it is a natural progression - at least it was for me. endTwoCents(); --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
