OK,
That makes sense. In Java if I hand it an int and a string it uses one
constructor, if I hand it just a float it uses another. So I see the
passing in of attributes and overloading argument. I guess for me it just
close enough. Is it exact? No but how many languages, even ones based on
the same principals, expose identical functionality in the same exact way.
If they did why would they be different languages.
I think I now see Ray's wisdom in bowing out early :)
Different opinions don't hurt anything.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:36 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do?
In this case, the main difference is the ability to pass parameters to
the constructor. This of course requires the constructor to be a method.
Additionally, in languages that support static properties and methods,
the constructor allows you to separate code executing in non-static
contexts. Finally, languages that support method overloading generally
allow constructor overloading as well.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
V: 415-577-8070
F: 415-341-8906
P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 6:26 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do?
>
> What can a constructor do that the "component body" cannot?
>
> What is the FUNCTIONAL difference?
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:24 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do?
>
>
> > The "component body" can be used for the same thing. Why get
> stuck
> > on the
> > semantics. I think if you were to take a Java developer who had
never
> > seen
> > CF before and explain it in these terms that are easy to translate,
he
> is
> > going to appreciate it.
> >
> While a component body can for the most part be used for the same
thing;
> it is not the same thing. Simply borrowing terms and then applying
their
> meanings incorrectly never gets anyone anywhere. While some people on
> this have no plans of every using any other language besides CF, some
> people on this list may simply be new programmers and for whatever
> reason have picked CF as their first language. It would be awful for
the
> later group to learn incorrect meanings of terms because it could
> negatively affect their ability to code with other languages or
> integrate well with more traditional programmers at a later date.
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
