Doug, You are confusing a few different ideas here I think ...
Yes, there is a lot of chat nowadays about frameworks and methodologies and the like. But that has nothing to do with CFCs really. Fusebox, for example, existed long before CFCs were introduced. I think what you are seeing is that many CFers have matured, their apps are more sophisticated, they have been introduced to concepts and practices popularized buy other languages, and they are trying to apply that thinking back to ColdFusion. And that's great, if it works for you. If it does not, then do what you do now. With the exception of a few features (creating web services, writing Flex back-ends in CF, and working with event gateways, to name a few), CFCs are entirely optional. Having said that, I don't believe that CFCs themselves have introduced OOP type complexity. Sure, CFCs can be part of a more sophisticated application architecture, but hey are also useful as an organization mechanism when building simple n-tier apps. Look at it this way, all of those <cfinclude> and Custom Tags that we built for years as a way to organize our code, well, CFCs are often better suited for the task. It's nothing to do with OOP if you don't want it to be. And as for "I am afraid to look at CFMX 8 as I feel that OO is the way CF is going", fear not. We'll add object type functionality when and if it makes sense, but we have no intentions of losing what made CF CF in the first place, simplicity and productivity. --- Ben -----Original Message----- From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:50 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: CFC's I came across this post where people were discussing the use of smith as an alternative to CFMX. Anyways, I was wondering what other peoples thoughts on the subject were. I have to agree that Macromedia Coldfusion is kind of getting away from what made CFML so popular and that was rapid developement. It seems that it is taking me twice as long to write alot of the code (using CFC's) then it did before hand, and the complication level has also increased. I am afraid to look at CFMX 8 as I feel that OO is the way CF is going. Message: While more competition in the CFML market is a great thing, this engine won't run any of the popular frameworks as it is missing one of the most important features of CFML; CFCs!!! Think of saying you have developed a Java engine, but it doesn't support user defined classes! Not much point. So yes, if all an engine had to do was to support simple Tags and CFML functions, then of coure it would be fast. Reply: Actually, I regard this as a Good Thing. CF is a champion for pounding out small sites quickly. I'd go as far to say that in that capacity probably nothing can beat it. I haven't seen anything that beats <cfquery> .... <cfoutput>. CFCs tried to bring objects and OO to CF, and they've gone a long way to destroying the principal strength of the language - simplicity. Take a look at the CF community these days and most of what you'll find is intellectual masturbation. They're going down the same road Java went down recently. A proliferation of frameworks, to the point where they have numerous ORMs and even a Spring clone. You have to wonder if at any point these guys don't say, "Hmm, why don't we just use Java?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:263741 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
