Ken,
You hit the nail on the head. My path to
OOishness started more than two years ago (after many many years of procedural
programming). I started by taking Hal Helm’s class on Mach-II. I
figured after 3 days I’d know this stuff backwards and forwards. (I
consider myself to be reasonably bright too.) So, after the class I quickly
ran home and was absolutely unable to get anything done. I spent the next two
years trying and trying and trying again. Then, one day, I was working in Java
(of all languages) and realized that (holy hell!!) I was applying OO unconsciously.
>From that point forward my learning curve has returned to my pre-OO days.
As Sean frequently says, “This stuff
is hard!”
And as I always say, “You’ve
got to try and screw up a few times before you’ll get it”. Why?
Because by messing up you’ll be able to see what went wrong. This, at
least for me, helps me to understand how to avoid this problem next time around.
Anyhow, yea, just keep moving forward.
Doug
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Dunnington
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:14
AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Reactor For CF] MG
RoCS
Dan -
If you ask some of the best and brightest in this community how long it took
them to truly comprehend OOP, I think most of them will say, "I'll let you
know when I get there." :) I've been reading lists, books, blogs and code,
asking questions, doing little tests here and there for the past year and a
half or so, and while I've got plenty of room to grow (and plenty of questions
left!) a lot of this stuff is starting to crystallize. The 'spark' for me was
just jumping in and assembling an application. I did plenty of prep work
beforehand, but once I started to use the tools, they started to make sense. My
suggestion is to check out the various tools from their respective
repositories, including all the samples that come with each. Pick apart each sample
one by one (concentrating on one tool at a time) then try and assemble your
own. If you get stuck, ask for help! The CF community is one of the friendliest
and most helpful developer communities on the planet, so it's a great place to
learn what all those darned acronyms mean and, more importantly, learn the
fundamental concepts that are behind them. All of these great tools use OO
concepts, so understanding those concepts will help a great deal in seeing how
and when to use the tools. I'd suggest Head First Design Patterns and maybe
Head First Java if you're looking for books on that subject. Also, a lot of
CF'ers are on Skype and GTalk, and willing to help out:
http://www.stephencollins.org/cfskypecommunity-optintrue/
Best of luck to you!
- Ken
On 2/21/06, Daniel
Short <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I figured this would be a
good post to reply to on this subject, Father ;).
I've been looking over MG and all the other wonderful OO tools out there for
a while. I start on them, get confused, back up, start over, and generally
always return to my own style of CFC development. I don't think what I'm
doing is bad, but I don't think it's efficient from a development time
perspective.
To that end, I've been trying to wrap my head around all of this stuff for
some time, and I just can't seem to make it happen. I'm not a CS major (I
have roughly one year of college credits gained mostly through CLEP tests
while in the Army) but I'm a smart guy... I simply get blocked by a lack of
common terminology. Once the dicussion devolves/evolves to beans, factories,
AOP, IOC, ABCDEFG, I get completely lost and can't follow the bread crumb
trail to save my life...
Does anyone know of a good resource, tutorial, example app, that shows how
all of these things get put together? Here's a perfect example of
the
buzz-word overload I generally get:
http://clearsoftware.net/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=31730F00-E081-2BAC-699C2
027E7CC02EB
Now I know that the *point* of that post is to stuff all of those things in
there, I get that :), but it just makes me feel like a total dunce when I'm
lost by the fourth sentence...
If anyone has a good walkthrough on how I can make MG RoC(S) I'd really
appreciate it... I'm almost to the point of giving up on it completely, even
though I know I'll pay for it later...
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Gabriel Roffman
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Reactor For CF] MG RoCS
>
> I think we all know that a convergence of technologies is not
> really important until it has an easy to remember acronym.
> And I think we see the momentum building for the combination
> of Model Glue, Reacor and ColdSpring.
> Therefore, I am publicy declaring that the combination of
> Model-Glue with Reactor and ColdSpring will be known as "MG
> RoCS". It's not important what the "o" stands
for. What is
> important is that it sounds cool and mostly that I called it
> this first. I would appreciate it if you all would now refer
> to me as the "Father of MG RoCS". I think it only
> appropriate. Hey, it worked for a while when I came up with
> the name "Fusebox".
>
> Hugs and kisses,
> Gabe Roffman
> Father of MG RoCS
>
>
>
>
> -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected]
> -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
>
>
>
-- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected]
-- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
- Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound. -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing
List -- [email protected] -- Archives at
http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
-- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- 
