On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Alex Skinner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reason I ask is it strikes me that often things are rewritten because > we can use new functionality rather than it offering any inherent > benefit ? > Ultimately to me it's simply a style preference thing. I haven't jumped on the all script bandwagon because A) OpenBD doesn't support it yet ;-), and B) I don't find the syntax compelling at all. If the goal was to reduce verbosity I don't think that goal was reached. In a lot of cases all you really wind up doing is trading angle brackets for curly brackets and to me it's harder to read, even though I read/write Java and JavaScript a lot. Don't get me wrong, for a lot of blocks of code within CFCs I like cfscript, but as a full replacement for the tags I'm just not getting it (in some cases writing things in script is actually MORE verbose), particularly since it's not like tag support will go away. So yeah, ultimately for compatibility this needs to be in OpenBD but to answer your question from my perspective, to me it's completely a style thing and unless I too am missing something I don't think there's a "Oh but you can do X in script and you can't do that in tags" case that can be cited. -- Matthew Woodward [email protected] http://blog.mattwoodward.com identi.ca / Twitter: @mpwoodward Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, etc. as attachments. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- official tag/function reference: http://openbd.org/manual/ mailing list - http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en
