[cfaussie] Re: Whats so bad about the tag syntax?

Thu, 11 May 2006 17:13:55 -0700



On 5/11/06, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 5/10/06, Dale Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Two things wrong with Tag based code.
>
> 1. Other developers when they see ColdFusion code hate it and immediately
> dismiss it as not a real language

I hate those clowns, not because I am a Coldfusion Disciple but simply
because they appear to be Techno-Religious fanatics who spend more
time stroking their own egos and worth because they know some
"higher-level" language rather then focusing on the problem at hand.

There are no such things as an "un-real" language, a language does a
multititude of things for various contexts, so anyone who rants that
trash are simply techno-cowards who are only two evolution cycles
above being classed as a monkey.


True that. These are the same clowns that come up with products like C++ server pages.

http://www.micronovae.com/default_csp.html

I have a hard enough time trying to get pages to work cross browser let alone worring about pointer referencing and memory managment.



 

> 2. You need to write about double the amount of code every time
>
> <cfloop index="i" from="1" to="10">
>
> </cfloop>
>
> for (i=1; i<=10; i++) {
>
> }
>


> See the differences in the amount of characters typed in this simple
> example.

Depends on your context of use and more importantly your IDE. At times
the cfloop does seem verbose, but i actually prefer the cfloop via
editors like Dreamweaver as they appear to be faster. I used to sit in
the ecma space quite a lot so fingers to keyboard, i'd pump out the
for() approach faster... yet when in Dreamweaver it would seem faster
via tag based. I say that as my mindset was so used to rightclick,
tabbing and data entry in a monkey see monkey do type mode of attack -
ie it's pretty much the same concept of how "Green Screen" terminal
users process day to day tasks yet in such a rapid manner.

I've read a research paper on the power of macros and keyboard
interaction, i'll see if i can google it and resurrect it, as it was
quite an interesting read.

On a side note, I do appreciate the schema approach to defining
machine instructions on various workflows of different types. In FLEX
you can flip in and out of the Tag based approach aswell as the ECMA
approach. This is somewhat useful as while the ECMA approach is still
my preferred for component development (feels more controllable) - yet
- the tag based approach is also equally more suited to structure and
high level layout approach.

Furthermore, having tag based approach also feels natural in terms of
defining ones own language. At times we live in a semantic-u-topia
whereby we have tags that have a fairly defined universal meaning to
appease the die-hard verb geeks. Yet at times they don't make sense to
the average person.

If you will, you have a CFLOOP approach to looping over and index from
1 to X. Now typically the motions of setting this up seems
traditionally 1 to #variable#. So it could be argued that in order to
have a more defined and "happy" approach one could simply go CFITERATE
to="#variable#" then on the off chance you do want to mix things up or
adjust the defaults (index=i or from=1) you can have that option.. but
they basically become "optional" attributes.

Thats the power you have with the tag based approach in coldfusion and
flex, you can extend them and make your own language.

Point: They are just tools, use them to suite your needs not live and
die by them and feel they are simply yet another constraint on your
development cycle(s).

>
> Regards
> Dale Fraser
> ________________________________________
> From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaussie@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Patrick Branley
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2006 09:10 AM
> To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [cfaussie] Whats so bad about the tag syntax ? was: where have all
> the cf developers gone ?
>
> I have to say i dont mind using the tag-based syntax for writing code. I
> would argue rather than making CF script ECMA compliant they should make the
> tag-based syntax XML valid! Who wants to write in the ugly Perl-like syntax
> of Php ? And its not so much writing it as it is reading other people's code
> who dont know how to comment correctly.
>
> CF is not the only tag-based language out there. .NET has custom tags & java
> has taglibs. They are a good way of writing simple logic as part of a
> tag-based page.
>
> What i think is missing from CF (and can someone confirm this is possible
> with JRun / CF Enterprise ) is a way of writing java objects and deploying
> them to the server on the fly just as you would write a CFC ? If so, then
> its just a matter of providing some Java APIs to the existing CF
> functions/tags in a java syntax (which would already exist id say, but just
> arent documented)
>
> If all of that was available then the workflow would be like this:
> 1. CFM pages with tag-based syntax for presenting HTML content.
> 2. POJO's for where you would currently use CFC's (but with the advantage of
> them being instantly deployable, rather than code-complie-deploy)
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> >
>


--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to