On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:15 AM, bill[y] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 hope so... but if it feels too much like Groovy, why not simply use Groovy? > * 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. I agree. I've been an evangelist for dynamic typing for a few years now (after being one of the most vocal advocates for CF getting *stricter* typing and <cfinterface> back in the day). The more I've worked with CFML (and other dynamic languages) alongside stricter languages like Java, the more I prefer the power of dynamic typing. It makes tester easier, it makes extensibility easier, it involves a helluva lot less typing. It generally makes me a faster programmer. > * Access Control ? * > Do we really _need_ private methods? Why? We don't. Groovy takes the approach that 'private' is just a hint to exclude something from the API docs but otherwise completely ignores 'private'. It makes sense. Who are you trying to protect code and data from? In CFML, you can always get at the protected data / methods in a CFC (note: protected - CFML does not have *private* anything!). You can either extend the CFC, giving you full access to VARIABLES scope or you can inject your own methods at runtime to expose whatever you need. Since it's that easy to "get around" the 'private' access control, you can't use it to protect your code against any developers so you might as well simply drop it. I quite like Adam's 'intent' annotations. > * Hindered Functionality ? * > cftransaction, cfquery, cfdump, cfstoredproc, etc., have no > _documented_ counterparts in cfscript. Now that I rely on ORMs for all persistence, I never write cftransaction, cfquery or any of its ilk. I use a logging service for debugging, I use a notification service to send emails. I'm finding that the omission of these tags is only a nuisance in very small p.o.c. code and never an issue in "real" programs. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
