> Internet Languages do not seem inherently sloppy to me, however a lot of > sloppy code is written. I do not believe that this is unique to web > languages.
If sloppy code can run, then it is inherently sloppy. I guess I could go on and on about browers rederning bad html, or non standard scripting java objects etc - but I figured most would understand what I meant. Try to compile sloppy Java or C and see what happens. > I believe that all my web applications are uniform, predictable, and > structured. I didn't say Jeffery writes bad code. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:20 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! I have to put in my .02 . Internet Languages do not seem inherently sloppy to me, however a lot of sloppy code is written. I do not believe that this is unique to web languages. I believe that all my web applications are uniform, predictable, and structured. At 10:07 AM 10/8/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Lee, > Your point is well taken, I was a bit bummed that some of our > existing code >didn't work too. I have to differ with you a bit though. > > Internet languages (html, javascript, etc) are awful sloppy. It > makes them >hard to read/debug. Coming from a C/Java stand point they are too forgiving. >If you look at the trend of the internet (xhtml, xml, etc), you'll notice >that code tightening is where we are going. > > Code often runs better when it is uniform, predictable, and > structured. > > It's a bit painful, but I think it will help cf run faster, among > other >things. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lee Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:54 AM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! > > >Hey Stace! > >I understand. And with this, it's most likely the same type of issue. > >One of the things, however, that sticks in my craw (as it were) was that >during the months leading up to CFMX's release, we were told OVER and >OVER again that existing code would work well in CFMX, with little, if >any, changes. I heard that bell ring in the tower more than 20 times, >that I can count on one hand. <grin> > >Yet here we are with "locking causes this", "change code to do this or >that", "fix up the code". Uhm... ? So am I to believe that the chant >was false? Telling my clients to go back and "fix" their code is like >saying.. > > "Uhm.. Sorry you can't park that car here, it's BLUE!" > "But you told me to paint it blue!?!?" > "I know, but now we're back to only RED cars. Sorry.. Go paint >it BLUE!" > >It's more than just an "inconvenience", to say the least. If I switch >back to 5, all the touting I did about CFMX's behavior and power was for >naught. And even worse, many of the CF clients may just opt for ASP, >PHP, etc., just cuz they don't believe me telling them "Well.. But don't >worry, it'll be fixed. Really!" > > >| -----Original Message----- >| From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >| Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:33 AM >| To: CF-Talk >| Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! >| >| >| Hi Lee, >| >| Out of 3 incidents I've opened relating to CFMX..I only got >| dinged for 1 of 'em...cause it was an environment issue on our end. >| >| Cheers, >| >| Stace >| >| -----Original Message----- >| From: Lee Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >| Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:10 PM >| To: CF-Talk >| Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! >| >| Jesse, >| >| Yeah.. We understand that. We completely understand what >| you're saying. But you missed my last post (or maybe I just >| haven't read your response yet <grin>) that YOU may not want >| us to pay. But there are others that WOULD. And that's what >| keeps us from calling up good-ol' MM. >| >| >| | -----Original Message----- >| | From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >| | Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:36 AM >| | To: CF-Talk >| | Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! >| | >| | >| | I think that something is being missed. If the bug is >| | with CFMX, you do not pay. That simple, we have our reasons >| | for asking for a credit card number, but it doesn't change >| | the fact that if it a cfmx bug, you do not pay. >| | >| | Do not pay. >| | >| | I understand your gripe, trust me, as someone who has >| | to deal with the varying operating systems and software >| | packages I have to, I completely understand. >| | >| | However, reading and addressing issues on mailing lists >| | is not my day-job. I do development and other assorted >| | things. While having the time to reply to mailing list issues >| | is nice, that's not how 99% of issues get reported and resolved. >| | >| | >| | >| | Jesse Noller >| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] >| | Macromedia Server Development >| | >| | > -----Original Message----- >| | > From: Dave Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >| | > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:21 AM >| | > To: CF-Talk >| | > Subject: RE: LONG time CF Supporter - About ready to dump CF! >| | > >| | > See Jesse, >| | > >| | > Many of us such as Lee and myself have been working with CF >| | for a long >| | > long time and we love the product, etc etc. >| | > >| | > When we run into problems, we take every step we can think >| | of to try >| | > and resolve the issue, not just for our own benefit, but for the >| | > benefit of the product itself. When persons like ourselves >| | (there are >| | > thousands of us) contact Macromedia to resolve an issue >| | it's usually >| | > in good spirit and we usually want to work *with* Macromedia in >| | > resolving the issues- y'know, kinda like being a beta >| tester. We're >| | > doing it for the product and the community as well as for our own >| | > benefit. Now being asked for a cc in this kind of >| situation is just >| | > too hard to stomach. It feels like walking along the >| | street, spotting >| | > a dangerous obstruction, attempting to move it to a safe >| place when >| | > suddenly being accosted by a police officer asking us to pay >| | > money to move such a dangerous object out of the way, or in this >| | > particular >| | > argument, provide security in case *we* do something wrong, >| | when what we >| | > are >| | > doing is helping. >| | > >| | > Just my $0.2 >| | > Dave >| | > >| | > >| | >| >| > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
