> > I didn't say that. I think Smalltalk is perfectly suited to loosely > specified evolving systems. I think dynamic languages in general are > very well suited to that type of system - Smalltalk, ColdFusion, > Ruby...
Sorry - I meant "you'd say" as in "one would say" - bad habit of mine. > > > You know, while we're crystal > > ball gazing about the next version, why would this be out > rather than in? > > What, specifically, are you referring to by "this"? Adding static > methods to ColdFusion? (WHY?) Making metadata a full object like > Smalltalk's where you can add your own methods and variables? (again, > why? Does ColdFusion need that complexity?) The latter - with the nice syntax where you can define class and instance in the same file. Why? It seems to me like a reduction in complexity. We're agreed that creating a singleton factory then injecting it into every instance is an OK approach. I think it would be simpler and more robust to just have this built-in. I think this is a core OO concept that in CF looks like an edge case because the language design has made it one. Anyway, I'm not really out to change the direction of CF, just trying to understand where and why I'm out of step. Jaime Metcher You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
