I agree with John 100%. Why retrofit Cold Fusion with OO, when
there are already great OO platforms out there, such as JSP
and PHP?
I think a lot of CF developers who haven't had experience with
OO look at CFObjects, etc., and are lured by all of the many
wonderful things that come out of OO, and fail to realize that
the true power of OO can only be unleashed with an OO language.
If you want a non-linear way of thinking, code reusability,
component libraries, etc., you want an OO language -- not
CF.
To answer your question, yes, there is something wrong with
sanding off the edges of a square peg, because there are plenty
of round pegs available.
You vaguely allude to underlying issues. Are you speaking of
technical issues, or political / personal issues (i.e. the
client requires Cold Fusion). If that's the case, your need
to shave off the edges may be justified, but I think you
should be more clear.
Bottom line: While an CFObjects/SmartObjects may work best
under certain constraints, it's not the most optimal approach
under normal conditions.
Scribble in the margin: Fusebox should provide enough
non-linearness to appease OO developers anyway. If they're
worth their weight in peg-shavings, they ought to be able
to figure it out and make life easier for the maintenance
people who have to come in after them.
Patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:47 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: another nesting problem
>
>
> While your philosophical point of view is well stated...I think
> the point of
> other tools and techniques like CFObject, et. al. is to introduce a method
> of development for those less seasoned web developers who come from a
> client/server based OO language environment.
>
> I know when I started developing web applications. the first
> thing I missed
> was the non-linear way of thinking. OO developers getting their
> first taste
> of web development can easily adapt their mind-set if they have tools like
> these to ease them into such a different way of doing things.
>
> When you think about all the different levels of capability in the
> development communities...is there really anything wrong with a
> little sand
> paper to help smooth those edges? And these tools do address underlying
> issues...just perhaps not the ones of which you are thinking.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:07 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: another nesting problem
>
>
>
> > This seemed to be a pretty cool method because you create an
> > object and then
> > you can define methods (read fuseactions) of that object. So the
> > query would
> > be a method and then you could refer to that object and pass it
> > that method
> > and it would return the query object.
>
> one solution, if you want to do some object programming, is to
> use a object
> programming language. CF is not such a beast. I think it's a good idea to
> keep in mind the old adage about "if all you've got's a hammer, then
> everything looks like a nail". SmartObjects, CFObjects, etc and
> the like are
> all very very interesting--but they beg the point: "why?" If you want to
> write object orientated code then write in an object orientated language,
> otherwise you're just forcing a square peg into a round hole--S.O. and
> C.F.O. simply provide some sanding paper to smooth the square peg's edges,
> they can't address the underlying issue of why the peg needed to
> be in that
> particular hole in the first place
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
