cf is a procedural language and noone can imagine that a framework likehii can tranform cf in an oo-language, even if cfc are very usefull. i think taht teh advantages of using machi essentially are: 1) machii leads to develop an app using MVC pattern, in a natural way; 2) machii permits to develop using a successive-iteration approach, typical of OO-A, OO-D, OO-P. machii give a programmer a way to oo-think an app. Regards savatore ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Westlake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 6:07 PM Subject: [ cf-dev ] Fusebox, Mach-II, and the future of CF
> Hi All, > > I have recently been in contact with John Quarto-vonTivadar, from > Techspedition. > > I asked him whether there were any plans for a Mach-II edition of the > Discovering Fusebox 4 with ColdFusion book (which was really helpful to me), > and whether he agreed with me that it might hellp to draw more developers to > ColdFusion, especially from the J2EE world. > > I asked him if he would mind me submitting his response to the UG and he was > happy to do so - he also wanted to join. His original reply is below: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > Sent: 20 April 2004 23:06 > > To: Sam Westlake > > Subject: Re: Fusebox 4 enquiry > > > > HI Sam, > > > > I hear what you are saying, but between you and me, I don't see a lot of > > people coming TO coldfusion but rather going away from it. And the > framework > > business is just not something small fry can get into at this point, since > > the new ASP.NET 2.0 will be including tons of framework-like features. I > > think the choice now is to get on the .NET or Java bandwagon, and even > then > > I think .NET has the leg up for where money and ability to create guruness > > will be. > > > > as for MachII, I'm glad to hear you like it! a Lot of work went into it. I > > think it's drawbacks are tied directly to CF's and I suggest to peoplem > that > > a procedural language like CF should use a procedural framework like FB. > > MachII was a good exercise in working with OO with what CF could provide > but > > in the end suffers from a lot of faults for exactly the same reason. All > the > > limitations of CF leave you with all of the headaches and pains in the ass > > of OO -- of which there cna be many -- but with a much-reduced set of > upside > > advantages that would come from a natively OO language. If you're gonna > work > > in CF, then stick to procedural work; if you're gonna do OO, then stick to > a > > OO language like Java or C# that supports all the advantages that OO can > > offer. > > > > I doubt we'll be doing a printed book, since I don't think the market > would > > support more than a few hundred sales. > > > -- > These lists are syncronised with the CFDeveloper forum at http://forum.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > CFDeveloper Sponsors and contributors:- > *Hosting and support provided by CFMXhosting.co.uk* :: *ActivePDF provided by activepdf.com* > *Forums provided by fusetalk.com* :: *ProWorkFlow provided by proworkflow.com* > *Tutorials provided by helmguru.com* :: *Lists hosted by gradwell.com* > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- These lists are syncronised with the CFDeveloper forum at http://forum.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ CFDeveloper Sponsors and contributors:- *Hosting and support provided by CFMXhosting.co.uk* :: *ActivePDF provided by activepdf.com* *Forums provided by fusetalk.com* :: *ProWorkFlow provided by proworkflow.com* *Tutorials provided by helmguru.com* :: *Lists hosted by gradwell.com* To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
