> In the scenario I just gave, that is how I don't use > scoping. > Writing it with scope would take one page to edit one to > add or a lot of if > statements.
Umm... it hasn't for any of my projects -- that was part of the reason why Fusebox started going down the path of putting all the form and url variables into the attributes scope... see my most recent email. > Yes, instead of coding extra amounts of code, > I do not scope. > I think some of my techniques are advanced and learned > over time, but I > could be wrong. Perhaps I will start creating files > called add.cfm, > update.cfm and delete.cfm like some people do. Please don't. There are techniques that allow both scoping and eliminate all the extra typing involved in cut & paste coding. > Sure, if the client changes > anything (like they always do) it will take me twice as > long to update the > code, but at least I saved them .00001 seconds!!!! > The reason that this got so heated on the other lists is > that some > people believe differently, and as I said in my response, > that is fine. I > have had to read other peoples code. Fusebox, > BroadVision, JS, webDNA, ASP, > PHP, VS, VB. I have never hit the problem that you guys > have with not being > able to find variables that are not scoped. CTRL+F works > for me. ... You must have never worked on some of the projects I've worked on... CTRL+F "ID" -- entire directory -- 15000 results... okay first instance... no, that's not it... 2nd instance... that's not it... 3rd instance... that's not it... only 14997 instances to go! Woohoo! Screamin' along, we'll be done in no time! :) > I also do not try to write OOP on code that is > compiled/interpreted > at run time. So you may have to look in one or two files > to see variables > in my code, not 10 like under some FB implementations I > have found. I've seen some pretty hideous implementations of FB. :) Not saying FB is bad necessarily -- I've worked with it and not had a problem on some of the FB projects I've worked on -- but I have seen implementations that were really monstrous. No framework, technique or framework can save us from poor implementation unfortunately. > If I where writing spaghetti code like that, then I would > definitely need scoping > on everything, heck, I'd probably name my variables > insertDataFName where > insertData is the name of the .cfm file I am in. But that > is just me. > I do not have trouble reading my code or anyone else's. > In my mind, > if you can't read someone's code, you don't really know > that language that > well and you should read it, you will learn something. > Don't rewrite for > the sake of rewrite, learn from the code. It may be > something useless that > you learn, but you'll learn something. It's a rare instance that I rewrite someone else's code. That generally only happens in my case if someone asks me to... doesn't mean I like what they've written necessarily. :) s. isaac dealey 972-490-6624 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap ----------------------------------------------- To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org
