I guess we all have our admamant areas :) If I see a Select * I get
fairly upset with the developer. In most caees you are bringing back
unneeded data and in a large developement envirmoent another programer
can not easily step into the code and see what is being selected from
where.
Adam H
On
OK, I'll bite. Why would you *not* use standard CFML tags for the
purpose they fullfill?
--
Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
#include stdjoke.h
-Original Message-
From: Glenn Saunders [mailto:[EMAIL
CFINSERT and CFUPDATE are nice shortcuts, but they're wierd. You're
required to have your variable names match the exact column names in the
DB, which, unless you have planned for that from the beginning, almost
always requires you to write unnecessary cfset applicationVar =
translatedDBVar
Glenn Saunders wrote:
But for most CF applications, that degree of optimization is overkill in
comparison to the extra keystrokes it takes to do variables. I find this
code:
CFSET variables.a = 1
CFSET variables.b = 1
CFSET variables.c = 1
CFSET variables.d = 1
CFSET variables.e = 1
At 07:35 AM 5/12/2005, you wrote:
OK, I'll bite. Why would you *not* use standard CFML tags for the
purpose they fullfill?
Well, for one thing, because CFINSERT and CFUPDATE don't call stored procs
and we do almost all our db work via stored procs.
With CFQUERY you can do CFQUERYPARAM to help
CFQUERY will not return back a new identity either, well depending on the
database chosen it will not without a second cfquery. Just curious, not
implying anything wrong with it one bit, but what are your reasonings for
using almost all SPs for your DB work? Also curious the reasons for that
At 09:12 AM 5/12/2005, you wrote:
At 09:00 AM 5/12/2005, you wrote:
CFQUERY will not return back a new identity either, well depending on the
database chosen it will not without a second cfquery.
This has sometimes worked in the past:
declare @new_id INT
insert into table (a, b)
values
That syntax is not even valid for all databases. An example I am thinking of
is how to return the identity when using Oracle. I know the syntax to use if
just in a SQL client, tried it with a couple of versions of DB drivers with
CF and never had it work. Of course it could simple just be done
At 09:18 AM 5/12/2005, you wrote:
CFLOCKing two queries together? Wouldn't that be CFTRANSACTIONing the two
queries together?
Well, the examples given with the select max(id) are so ugly, don't even
consider doing it, but since it's in at least one of the CF books a lot of
developers got set
with oracle vernacular the word is sequence. Just perform a query to return
the next value in the sequence, then use it in your inserts.
SELECT seqname.next_val as newid FROM dual
INSERT INTO tablefoo (id, goo) VALUES (newid, 'soem stuff')
DK
On 5/12/05, Aaron Rouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
From: Douglas Knudsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:00 AM
To: CF-Jobs-Talk
Subject: Re: What makes a programmer look low level
with oracle vernacular the word is sequence. Just perform a query to
return
the next value in the sequence
It is SEQNAME.NEXTVAL in Oracle and I'd like to see how you get that to work
in a single CFQUERY that returns NEWID to the CFM page. Using two CFQUERies
would at least avoid the need to lock anything.
On 5/12/05, Douglas Knudsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
with oracle vernacular the word is
Which still does not return the unique identifier(the value of
SEQNAME.NEXTVAL) to the CFM page. The lack of returning a the unique
identifier was one of the big hang ups given against CFINSERT. A simple
trigger in the database and making sure form fields use the same names as
columns would
there is no need at all to lock anything. Once you get the nextval from the
sequence, it is yours to keep. Another thread, request, user what have you
will get a differnt value guarnteed.
You will have to use two queries to return the value though, but again, no
locking is needed.
DK
On
Funny I was going to use DAO as an arguement for using Select * but
didn't bother since I didn;t want to mix entry level using select *
with using Select * with a DAO Design Pattern which if you are using
DAO you're not entry level. I could just as Easily say though (just
for arguements sake) that
Except that's 2 places... 1 in the database and 1 in the code... 2...
:)
I wouldn't call that lazy -- you'd be _amazed_ how much time you can
save (and productivity you can gain) by cutting out very small
(microscopic) tasks which occur often. At least for me, I consider
schema changes at least
At 10:33 AM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
I have met some developers that are very talented (I'd
consider them Senior level developers based on skill alone) who happen
to have poor syntax/code style habits.
Did you explain to them the right way to do it? If so, did they
change? If they didn't, that
At 10:47 AM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
I can see places where this is needed
If the join is across servers, sure.
If the join was expensive enough and you were doing a paged view then you
could run one query per page with a valuelist of the foreign keys rather
than doing a round trip to the db on
At 01:10 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
Like I said I knew people would disagree, and I understand that which
is why I scope everything b/c I dislike being a black sheep :) But
I'll ask why are people so adamant about it?
Because CF has to interrogate memory on unscoped variables based on a
predefined
At 01:11 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
along with -- up until now --
cfform.
What do you have against CFFORM?
~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking
application. Start tracking and documenting
At 01:52 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
Is it just me, or do the comments other developers leave throughout their
code mostly get in the way of just reading the raw code? Having read through
all kinds of existing code, I much prefer to have everything scoped and the
code arranged in a consistent, logical
]
To: CF-Jobs-Talk cf-jobs-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: What makes a programmer look low level
At 01:10 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
Like I said I knew people would disagree, and I understand that which
is why I scope everything b/c I dislike being a black sheep
At 10:39 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
Not all documentation is good; in fact, most is bad (in my experience.)
In my experience, most is non-existent. But, I've never had a problem
with documentation that is there. And I still have a hard time imagining a
time where comments make it hard to
documentation or comments= yeah right;]
-Original Message-
From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:42 AM
To: CF-Jobs-Talk
Subject: SPAM-LOW: RE: What makes a programmer look low level
At 10:39 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
Not all documentation
right;]
-Original Message-
From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:42 AM
To: CF-Jobs-Talk
Subject: RE: What makes a programmer look low level
At 10:39 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
Not all documentation is good; in fact, most is bad (in my experience.)
In my
;
*[good documentation or comments = yeah right;]
-Original Message-
From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:42 AM
To: CF-Jobs-Talk
Subject: SPAM-LOW: RE: What makes a programmer look low
level
At 10:39 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote
If someone can write CFCs, custom tags and UDFs, I automatically upgrade
him/her to mid-level. For me this would be a sign that the person is a
mid-level developer.
Johnny
Breaking encapsulation In CFCs (or custom tags or UDFs) by referencing
shared scope variable (application, session,
Anyone can write udfs and custom tags it takes very little skill.
Writting well crafted ones might make you mid-level. Custom tags with
something like checking the execution mode missing definetly would
make you look low level...Likewise making a UDF isn't that complex but
not varing all your
At 01:25 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
How about we look at what makes a programmer look low level and work our
way up. Two things that come right to mind are:
1. Improper use of pound signs in evaluation zones
2. Improper usage of IF clauses (not using short circuited Boolean evaluation)
A few
This could be purposely done and part of someones style. I always do the
cfif IsDefined() AND ... method but have seen the other route taken from
rather knowledgable people. At what point do you decide it would be easier
to follow some nested if's over one single long if statement. I can not
Not scoping variables. Both, in regular templates (Is this a form
variable, a URL variable, a local variable, etc.. ) and in Functions / CFCs
(where improper scoping is more likely to have adverse side affects).
I think scoping variables makes code easier to read but to me scoping
every
At 01:25 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
How about we look at what makes a programmer look low
level and work our
way up. Two things that come right to mind are:
1. Improper use of pound signs in evaluation zones
2. Improper usage of IF clauses (not using short circuited
Boolean evaluation)
A few
At 03:13 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
At 01:25 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
How about we look at what makes a programmer look low
level and work our
way up. Two things that come right to mind are:
1. Improper use of pound signs in evaluation zones
2. Improper usage of IF clauses (not using short
How would you spot these in a code sample? :P
cfif parameterExists...
- Jim
S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
How would you spot these in a code sample? :P
1. An unwillingness to learn
2. Believing that they have no room for improvement
3. Blindly following the advice of some so-called
Credible
it's worth noting that none of these are easy to determine in an
interview. Some people are great developers who have poor interview
skills, which makes it entirely possible to mistake these qualities (or
lack thereof).
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CIO, AboutWeb - http://www.aboutweb.com
I've got to disagree - I prefix every variable I reference and can only
fault those who don't. I think the reasons for this have already been
discussed.
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CIO, AboutWeb - http://www.aboutweb.com
Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal
Member of Team Macromedia
Nice! :) That one actually got a literal laugh out loud on this end.
:)
How would you spot these in a code sample? :P
cfif parameterExists...
- Jim
S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
How would you spot these in a code sample? :P
1. An unwillingness to learn
2. Believing that they have no room
So me scoping myQuery.varname is essential in a cfoutput
query=myQuery block? I disagree but I know people think
differently... I do agree with the url. or form. or cookie . though in
many cases it could be coming from different places so scoping those
are good. If you understand your current
What makes a programmer look low level is:
1. Not predefining variable for later use at start of code file or in a
universal inclusion. Really, I think people should be held accountable to write
out in documentation every variable used along with every set of data whether
originating in a
not only do I adamantly believe that inside of a CFOUTPUT query= loop
should you prefix the column names with the query name, but I also scope
the variable (cfoutput query=variables.qMyQuery.).
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CIO, AboutWeb - http://www.aboutweb.com
Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion
Easy. You find some code they wrote three years ago. Then you find some code
they wrote recently. Use brain to determine how much they've learned.
- Original Message -
From: S. Isaac Dealey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, May 9, 2005 1:32 pm
Subject: Re: What makes a programmer look
I tend to scope these, it is not out of worry of me not knowing what I am
referencing or even of someone else coming in and not knowing. I think it is
more of just out of habbit and it just gets typed. I do know at one time I
came across a prior developers work who would be in a cfoutput
What makes a programmer look low level is:
1. Not predefining variable for later use at start of code
file or in a universal inclusion. Really, I think people
should be held accountable to write out in documentation
every variable used along with every set of data whether
originating in a
Code encapsulation is CS101 concept. If someone is not understanding
encapsulation, then they are a novice programmer.
Whether they are a novice CF Developer or not may be open to
interpretation, since many CF Developers are not programmers by trade.
At 03:50 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
I
-Original Message-
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd love to know how ou find code that an applicant wrote 3 years
ago.
Contributions to OSS?
--
Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
Like I said I knew people would disagree, and I understand that which
is why I scope everything b/c I dislike being a black sheep :) But
I'll ask why are people so adamant about it?
Adam H
On 5/9/05, Simon Horwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not only do I adamantly believe that inside of a
Oh yeah I forgot another short sighted new programmer
annoyance I hold is:
Complex code that isn't tabbed or seperated like in case
of a query with 100 fields running a big comma list versus
putting a carriage return after each field name follwed by
a comma.
Makes debugging a pain since
That reminds me of one...Select * in SQL statements...thats a really
big PITA and a sign of a beginner or a lazy coder...
I completely understand readability but I would like to think my
comments will help even the novice of developers understand where my
variables are...but I see that...and
If this is a matter of finding the right candidate, I'd be most interested in
what they have done. How many projects? Where are the projects online to run
through the paces? How similar is anything they have done to anything you are
doing? Are they familiar with your industry? With your
I agree that if we're generalizing, any developer that doesn't
encapslate code is a poor developer (novice or otherwise) but CF, as you
say, has many developers that aren't developers by trade at all. CF
Applications are often times so simple that to call them an
application may seem like a
I've seen pages that reference a variable like #user_id# inside and
outside of a query loop - and the page accepts a url parameter and form
field with this name AS WELL as having a query containing a column with
that name. Not specifying where the variable came from makes the code
much more
Adam Haskell wrote:
I think scoping variables makes code easier to read but to me scoping
every single vaible tells me you either 1) don;t trust your code or 2)
don't understand how scope is working in your current situation which
would imply a lower level of skill. I know most poeple will
When you say Structure are you talking about code formatting, or
something different? My impression is that you are referring to code
formatting however structure could mean different things, so...
I'd rather see comments than formatted code. I can read unformatted
code, or format it as
through the lines and clearly seeing what everything does and how its being
done.
-Original Message-
From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:07 PM
To: CF-Jobs-Talk
Subject: RE: What makes a programmer look low level
When you say Structure are you
I generally put form and urls into a My structure. THen I do
my.variableName..but I suppose to appease some I should be doing
variables.my.variableName ;)
Adam H
On 5/9/05, Jeffry Houser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a page can be accessed via both url requests and form posts how
does one
What I have seen some do is put URL and FORM into the REQUEST scope and then
reference that scope.
On 5/9/05, Jeffry Houser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a page can be accessed via both url requests and form posts how
does one handle a variable that may be in either scope? Do ya'll use a
You can ask the applicant, ask a company the applicant has
worked for, see if they have any open source projects,
etc...
I never have problems getting code samples from
applicants, even code that's a few years old. Most people
are quite proud of what they've worked on, regardless of
what
it happens, is fantastic.
Again, this is my experience with hiring that I'm speaking from.
- Original Message -
From: Simon Horwith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, May 9, 2005 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: What makes a programmer look low level
no, it's never difficult to get code samples
done.
-Original Message-
From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:07 PM
To: CF-Jobs-Talk
Subject: RE: What makes a programmer look low level
When you say Structure are you talking about code formatting, or
something different? My impression
-
From: Simon Horwith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, May 9, 2005 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: What makes a programmer look low level
no, it's never difficult to get code samples, but if you ask
someone for
a code sample that's 3 years old, there's absoutely no way to know
that
it really is 3 years
1. Not predefining variable for later use at
start of code file or in a universal inclusion.
I'll disagree here and say this is a matter of style, not skill. This makes
sense to do in an environment where multiple developers will be working on
the same code-base all the time, but for smaller
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:18 PM
To: CF-Jobs-Talk
Subject: RE: What makes a programmer look low level
Good documentation should show you how it does work.
I find it hard to imagine a point where code documentation detracts from
code readability, which is what your
62 matches
Mail list logo
