Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one. Someone
once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do OO,
what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer.
I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a true
OO language such as Ruby or Java.
Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox
> I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you
> have to tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology,
> *and* the documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for
> a person new to the methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking
> it, it'd get a much wider notice :)
I'd argue that the major problem with CFObjects is something completely
different. I don't think tacking object-orientation onto CF - which is
pretty much a batch-processing environment - is such a great idea. If you
want to write OO code, you'd be better served with an OO language.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
