Just to say I'm another "all cfscripter". I use tags for components and functions because I have to, I have a couple of base component methods like dump() wrapping key tags, and I find most tags are well encapsulated anyway - cflocations are handled by a redirect() method in the BaseController, I have an executeSQL() method in my BaseDAO, I hide all cfmails within calls to a NotificationService, etc. This also allows me to wrap additional functionality around classes of activity (directory operations, emails, etc.) as they all happen in one place.
Best Wishes, Peter On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:15 PM, bill[y] wrote: > > > I've preferred writing in cfscript ever since it came out. There's a > lot less keystrokes and cfscript is more readable; to mine eyes alone, > maybe. I like the brevity of cfscript vs. the more verbose tag based > expressions, and I'm looking forward to Centaur's improvements. I > wonder if it's gonna feel like Groovy? > > Anyway, aside from documentation metadata and some hindered > functionality, what are the _real_ downsides of cfscript today ? > > * Statically Typed Parameters ? * > http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4639 ("Uncle" Bob > Martin) > After reading this older article a while back, I started to seriously > re-think the importance of statically typed data in favor of loosely > typed data. The point that struck me about this article and comments > is that even though the compiler does type checking, you can still > write bad code. So, what does a compiler do for the quality of your > code? > > Also, what good is runtime checking of datatypes - could that be a > code smell? I'm starting to think that if I'm relying on the runtime > to make sure my app works, I'm being lazy. Like Bob mentioned above, > the more I unit test, the less I rely on the runtime to check my > stuff. Anyone else feel like this? > > * Access Control ? * > By default, a function (udf) in cfscript is public. There's no > _documented_ way to alter this access. It would be nice to make a > cfscript udf remote or private ... which brings me to another > quandary: Do we really _need_ private methods? Why? > > > * Hindered Functionality ? * > cftransaction, cfquery, cfdump, cfstoredproc, etc., have no > _documented_ counterparts in cfscript. For me, this is the biggest > drawback. I know I can build tag-based wrappers and have cfscript udfs > call them. This is ok, but, what I'm also finding is that the overall > format of my code is inconsistent - I'll evolve a mishmash of cfscript > and cf tags ... not very pretty. > > Any cfscripters out there or anyone that codes almost entirely in > cfscript? > > > best, > bill > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
