Re: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
I am half-kidding, but I would like a tool that is smart enough to show inline spelling and grammar problems and fix them. Just like the spelling and grammar tools in Word, this should be a feature you can disable if it gets in your way. The biggest obstacle I see to building tools like this is the time required to make them work even half well versus the payoff in potential market for programming tools. Maybe Dreamweaver has a big enough market to make it a viable enhancement, but compare that to the size of the market for MS Word. >I think I might sound like an old man here, but I can easily picture >this product coming out, installing it and then screaming at the top of >my lungs because it won't leave me alone. > >ME: Don't change that code please. > >HAL: I'm going to change it Ken. > >ME: Please Hal, I want it that way. > >HAL: I'm going to change it Ken. > >ME: Hal, I want it written that way! > >HAL: I was developed to be your superior. I'll make the decisions on >what code gets written and where. > >ME: If you touch that F*%KING code Hal, I'm going to rip out your power >cord. > >HAL: If you touch my power cord, I'll format the hard-drive, Ken. > >ME... > >HAL... > >ME... [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
Ken, that's not Hal Helms is it? -mk -Original Message- From: Ken Ferguson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:45 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...) I know you're half-kidding here, but you're not too far off of what people who make these things would just LOVE to do. If you find an editor like this, please let me know so that I can AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE! The worst thing about all these WYSIWYG's and new IDEs is that they won't just get out of the way. I always think that if I type something - that's what I wanted to type. The reason I like CF Studio and Homesite is that they have the handy little code completion things that drop down and you can hit enter or keep typing without them slowing you down or changing stuff without you. But I get so sick of all of this over-automation. I think I might sound like an old man here, but I can easily picture this product coming out, installing it and then screaming at the top of my lungs because it won't leave me alone. ME: Don't change that code please. HAL: I'm going to change it Ken. ME: Please Hal, I want it that way. HAL: I'm going to change it Ken. ME: Hal, I want it written that way! HAL: I was developed to be your superior. I'll make the decisions on what code gets written and where. ME: If you touch that F*%KING code Hal, I'm going to rip out your power cord. HAL: If you touch my power cord, I'll format the hard-drive, Ken. ME... HAL... ME... You see what I mean? We'd all end up smashing our computers with large sledgehammers and moving to Idaho to live in the woods. Who was it that suggested a felt-tip pen...? I think that was the best idea so far. Ferg _ From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 11:47 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...) >So the question isn't whether or not to have tools, but what sort of tools >will they be? Personally I'd like a tool that can "fill in the blanks" on simple coding tasks. Templates and wizards help to some extent, but I'd like something smart enough to go back and fix my mistakes, add missing parameters, that sort of thing. For instance, I wrote a little function on the list not to long ago, and I used _javascript_ notation for a loop in cfscript. I want an editor that is smart enough to not only tell me that's wrong but to suggest changes or even fix code automatically and highlight the changes. This is functionally no different than a spelling and grammar checker in a word processor. Of course, what I'd really like is an editor that wrote code for me so I could tell it what I want and have it produce all the code. It should understand my voice over the cellphone- that way I can spend more time at the beach. ;-) OK, maybe that's a little tongue in cheek but ultimately I don't see why not. In fact, once a system becomes that sophisticated you can just cut out the editor completely and talk directly to the application server. You can call your CF application server using VoIP and just tell it what you want it to build. Voice could be augmented by other forms of input- text, binary file input. CF Server Enterprise, Voice-Enabled Edition. Now that's RAD. _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
I know you're half-kidding here, but you're not too far off of what people who make these things would just LOVE to do. If you find an editor like this, please let me know so that I can AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE! The worst thing about all these WYSIWYG's and new IDEs is that they won't just get out of the way. I always think that if I type something - that's what I wanted to type. The reason I like CF Studio and Homesite is that they have the handy little code completion things that drop down and you can hit enter or keep typing without them slowing you down or changing stuff without you. But I get so sick of all of this over-automation. I think I might sound like an old man here, but I can easily picture this product coming out, installing it and then screaming at the top of my lungs because it won't leave me alone. ME: Don't change that code please. HAL: I'm going to change it Ken. ME: Please Hal, I want it that way. HAL: I'm going to change it Ken. ME: Hal, I want it written that way! HAL: I was developed to be your superior. I'll make the decisions on what code gets written and where. ME: If you touch that F*%KING code Hal, I'm going to rip out your power cord. HAL: If you touch my power cord, I'll format the hard-drive, Ken. ME... HAL... ME... You see what I mean? We'd all end up smashing our computers with large sledgehammers and moving to Idaho to live in the woods. Who was it that suggested a felt-tip pen...? I think that was the best idea so far. Ferg _ From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 11:47 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...) >So the question isn't whether or not to have tools, but what sort of tools >will they be? Personally I'd like a tool that can "fill in the blanks" on simple coding tasks. Templates and wizards help to some extent, but I'd like something smart enough to go back and fix my mistakes, add missing parameters, that sort of thing. For instance, I wrote a little function on the list not to long ago, and I used _javascript_ notation for a loop in cfscript. I want an editor that is smart enough to not only tell me that's wrong but to suggest changes or even fix code automatically and highlight the changes. This is functionally no different than a spelling and grammar checker in a word processor. Of course, what I'd really like is an editor that wrote code for me so I could tell it what I want and have it produce all the code. It should understand my voice over the cellphone- that way I can spend more time at the beach. ;-) OK, maybe that's a little tongue in cheek but ultimately I don't see why not. In fact, once a system becomes that sophisticated you can just cut out the editor completely and talk directly to the application server. You can call your CF application server using VoIP and just tell it what you want it to build. Voice could be augmented by other forms of input- text, binary file input. CF Server Enterprise, Voice-Enabled Edition. Now that's RAD. _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)[ENCRYPTED]
> Most people are comfortable with the notion that CFML is a > RAD platform, while Java and .NET are not. I suspect many .NET developers would not be comfortable with this notion, actually. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
>So the question isn't whether or not to have tools, but what sort of tools >will they be? Personally I'd like a tool that can "fill in the blanks" on simple coding tasks. Templates and wizards help to some extent, but I'd like something smart enough to go back and fix my mistakes, add missing parameters, that sort of thing. For instance, I wrote a little function on the list not to long ago, and I used _javascript_ notation for a loop in cfscript. I want an editor that is smart enough to not only tell me that's wrong but to suggest changes or even fix code automatically and highlight the changes. This is functionally no different than a spelling and grammar checker in a word processor. Of course, what I'd really like is an editor that wrote code for me so I could tell it what I want and have it produce all the code. It should understand my voice over the cellphone- that way I can spend more time at the beach. ;-) OK, maybe that's a little tongue in cheek but ultimately I don't see why not. In fact, once a system becomes that sophisticated you can just cut out the editor completely and talk directly to the application server. You can call your CF application server using VoIP and just tell it what you want it to build. Voice could be augmented by other forms of input- text, binary file input. CF Server Enterprise, Voice-Enabled Edition. Now that's RAD. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
> > ... I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of > > writing ASP.NET code in any generic text editor. It's > > simply not that difficult. > > It might not be difficult, but it is more time consuming. I'm personally finding the difference to be less and less over time, actually. > Even the best tools can't hide the complexity that is > required. They can improve the situation, but they can't win. > This is why I still believe CFML beats ASP.NET even when using > VS.NET. I agree that CFML is easier than ASP.NET - it's still my language of choice. My point was simply that it's not useful to talk about ASP.NET development sans tools, since the tools are an integral part of the development process. The appropriate comparison, in my opinion, is ASP.NET with VS.NET versus CFMX with whatever editor you like. The strength of CFMX is that it's simple enough to write that you don't need an abstraction to hide complexity and a complex toolset to build applications. > That remains to be seen how it will work out long term. In > the history of software development, it is rare of have an > abstraction of this nature work out. A perfect example is > remote objects. There have been all kinds of attempts at > making remote object invocation require no knowledge of the > fact that the object itself is remote. However, sometimes you > need to know it is remote and because that has been > abstracted away disastrous results follow. I agree, and I think that the VS.NET model has serious limitations today. I don't think it's suitable for building complex high-volume web applications now. On the other hand, for the average intranet application, it's probably perfectly ok. > > So, I'm not sure whether a Visual Studio-workalike for CF > > would make CF developers any more efficent than they already > > are. In addition, I don't think it would make them more > > efficient than ASP.NET developers using the same development > > model, since ASP.NET supports this model while CF doesn't. > > If that is the case then why do CFML developers use tools? I > mean if it can't make them more efficient, then why use them? I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not saying that CF developers don't need or want tools. We all use tools. I doubt many of us are building cfm files by piping individual characters into a file. However, most CF developers are successful using comparatively simple tools - glorified text editors at best. I don't think a VS.NET-style GUI builder that provided an illusion of an event-driven environment would be embraced by CF developers, because CF doesn't support that illusion, and CF developers are knowledgeable enough not to require that illusion, unlike people who've been building VB desktop applications for the last ten years. If you take a look at the CF development tools available now - Dreamweaver, Homesite+, cfeclipse, He3 - only one of them provides a useful WYSIWYG development environment, and many people here simply aren't interested in it. They don't need it or don't want it. I actually like Dreamweaver quite a bit now, and I think that a lot of the HTML and CSS functionality in design view is phenomenal, but I still find myself in code view most of the time. So the question isn't whether or not to have tools, but what sort of tools will they be? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
> My counterpoint is that I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of > writing ASP.NET code in any generic text editor. It's simply not that > difficult. I pointed out some tools other than Visual Studio, but I also > pointed out that the code itself isn't that complex in most cases. > It might not be difficult, but it is more time consuming. > I also think it's a mistake to base your comparison on how easy it is to > develop without tools. Who cares, really? That's what tools are for! Even > if > ASP.NET were as difficult to read as obfuscated Perl, who cares if you can > generate the code without knowing how it works by just clicking your > mouse? > Sure, it might be more difficult to maintain that code, but we're talking > about "Rapid Application Development", not "Rapid Application > Maintenance". > And there's no reason why that code can't be maintained through the same > tool, either. > Even the best tools can't hide the complexity that is required. They can improve the situation, but they can't win. This is why I still believe CFML beats ASP.NET even when using VS.NET. > The feature that makes Visual Studio stand out as an ASP.NET IDE is its > success at abstracting how web applications work - at a very basic level - > away from the programmer. That is, you can take someone who's been > building > desktop forms-based applications, who has no experience with web > applications, and put that person in front of Visual Studio and say, > "build > me a web app". Visual Studio makes the most out of the (largely illusory) > event-driven model that ASP.NET allows. > That remains to be seen how it will work out long term. In the history of software development, it is rare of have an abstraction of this nature work out. A perfect example is remote objects. There have been all kinds of attempts at making remote object invocation require no knowledge of the fact that the object itself is remote. However, sometimes you need to know it is remote and because that has been abstracted away disastrous results follow. > So, I'm not sure whether a Visual Studio-workalike for CF would make CF > developers any more efficent than they already are. In addition, I don't > think it would make them more efficient than ASP.NET developers using the > same development model, since ASP.NET supports this model while CF > doesn't. > If that is the case then why do CFML developers use tools? I mean if it can't make them more efficient, then why use them? -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
Something else to consider is the idea of the code/language itself as a tool--not to write code, but to get the job done. If you look at it this way, using CFML and a simple (non-integrated) editor could be seen as comprable to using ASP.NET and VS.NET. On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:56:37 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you're both right in that you are correctly making separate points. > > I think it is correct to say that stripped of VS.NET and other fancy IDE's, a CF application of moderate difficulty could be constructed and deployed more rapidly than an ASP.NET application of the same ilk. > > However, you really can't strip the IDE from the "Development" part of RAD. So when you correctly include the nifty set of tools involved in the entire development arena of .NET, it may be just as 'RAD'ical as CF. (yeah, i'm a child of the 80s) > > Brian > > - Original Message - > From: Dave Watts > To: CF-Talk > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:53 PM > Subject: RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...) > > > My point is that CF without any tools provides RAD > > capabilities, while Java and .NET do not. > > My counterpoint is that I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of > writing ASP.NET code in any generic text editor. It's simply not that > difficult. I pointed out some tools other than Visual Studio, but I also > pointed out that the code itself isn't that complex in most cases. > > I also think it's a mistake to base your comparison on how easy it is to > develop without tools. Who cares, really? That's what tools are for! Even if > ASP.NET were as difficult to read as obfuscated Perl, who cares if you can > generate the code without knowing how it works by just clicking your mouse? > Sure, it might be more difficult to maintain that code, but we're talking > about "Rapid Application Development", not "Rapid Application Maintenance". > And there's no reason why that code can't be maintained through the same > tool, either. > > > Thus, I am making the assertion that if CF had the same > > kind of tooling as Java and .NET then its RAD capabilities > > would be greater increased. Do you disagree with this assertion? > > Well, actually, yes, I do. > > The feature that makes Visual Studio stand out as an ASP.NET IDE is its > success at abstracting how web applications work - at a very basic level - > away from the programmer. That is, you can take someone who's been building > desktop forms-based applications, who has no experience with web > applications, and put that person in front of Visual Studio and say, "build > me a web app". Visual Studio makes the most out of the (largely illusory) > event-driven model that ASP.NET allows. > > The feature that makes CF "RAD" is the simplicity of the code itself. On the > other hand, you have to have more basic knowledge about how web applications > work to even get started with CF. CF doesn't abstract the HTTP > request-response process away from the developer. Fortunately for all of us, > this basic knowledge is easily acquired, and the guy in the previous > paragraph would quickly run into limits in the places where the event-driven > model breaks down. > > So, I'm not sure whether a Visual Studio-workalike for CF would make CF > developers any more efficent than they already are. In addition, I don't > think it would make them more efficient than ASP.NET developers using the > same development model, since ASP.NET supports this model while CF doesn't. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > phone: 202-797-5496 > fax: 202-797-5444 > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
I think you're both right in that you are correctly making separate points. I think it is correct to say that stripped of VS.NET and other fancy IDE's, a CF application of moderate difficulty could be constructed and deployed more rapidly than an ASP.NET application of the same ilk. However, you really can't strip the IDE from the "Development" part of RAD. So when you correctly include the nifty set of tools involved in the entire development arena of .NET, it may be just as 'RAD'ical as CF. (yeah, i'm a child of the 80s) Brian - Original Message - From: Dave Watts To: CF-Talk Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:53 PM Subject: RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...) > My point is that CF without any tools provides RAD > capabilities, while Java and .NET do not. My counterpoint is that I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of writing ASP.NET code in any generic text editor. It's simply not that difficult. I pointed out some tools other than Visual Studio, but I also pointed out that the code itself isn't that complex in most cases. I also think it's a mistake to base your comparison on how easy it is to develop without tools. Who cares, really? That's what tools are for! Even if ASP.NET were as difficult to read as obfuscated Perl, who cares if you can generate the code without knowing how it works by just clicking your mouse? Sure, it might be more difficult to maintain that code, but we're talking about "Rapid Application Development", not "Rapid Application Maintenance". And there's no reason why that code can't be maintained through the same tool, either. > Thus, I am making the assertion that if CF had the same > kind of tooling as Java and .NET then its RAD capabilities > would be greater increased. Do you disagree with this assertion? Well, actually, yes, I do. The feature that makes Visual Studio stand out as an ASP.NET IDE is its success at abstracting how web applications work - at a very basic level - away from the programmer. That is, you can take someone who's been building desktop forms-based applications, who has no experience with web applications, and put that person in front of Visual Studio and say, "build me a web app". Visual Studio makes the most out of the (largely illusory) event-driven model that ASP.NET allows. The feature that makes CF "RAD" is the simplicity of the code itself. On the other hand, you have to have more basic knowledge about how web applications work to even get started with CF. CF doesn't abstract the HTTP request-response process away from the developer. Fortunately for all of us, this basic knowledge is easily acquired, and the guy in the previous paragraph would quickly run into limits in the places where the event-driven model breaks down. So, I'm not sure whether a Visual Studio-workalike for CF would make CF developers any more efficent than they already are. In addition, I don't think it would make them more efficient than ASP.NET developers using the same development model, since ASP.NET supports this model while CF doesn't. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
> My point is that CF without any tools provides RAD > capabilities, while Java and .NET do not. My counterpoint is that I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of writing ASP.NET code in any generic text editor. It's simply not that difficult. I pointed out some tools other than Visual Studio, but I also pointed out that the code itself isn't that complex in most cases. I also think it's a mistake to base your comparison on how easy it is to develop without tools. Who cares, really? That's what tools are for! Even if ASP.NET were as difficult to read as obfuscated Perl, who cares if you can generate the code without knowing how it works by just clicking your mouse? Sure, it might be more difficult to maintain that code, but we're talking about "Rapid Application Development", not "Rapid Application Maintenance". And there's no reason why that code can't be maintained through the same tool, either. > Thus, I am making the assertion that if CF had the same > kind of tooling as Java and .NET then its RAD capabilities > would be greater increased. Do you disagree with this assertion? Well, actually, yes, I do. The feature that makes Visual Studio stand out as an ASP.NET IDE is its success at abstracting how web applications work - at a very basic level - away from the programmer. That is, you can take someone who's been building desktop forms-based applications, who has no experience with web applications, and put that person in front of Visual Studio and say, "build me a web app". Visual Studio makes the most out of the (largely illusory) event-driven model that ASP.NET allows. The feature that makes CF "RAD" is the simplicity of the code itself. On the other hand, you have to have more basic knowledge about how web applications work to even get started with CF. CF doesn't abstract the HTTP request-response process away from the developer. Fortunately for all of us, this basic knowledge is easily acquired, and the guy in the previous paragraph would quickly run into limits in the places where the event-driven model breaks down. So, I'm not sure whether a Visual Studio-workalike for CF would make CF developers any more efficent than they already are. In addition, I don't think it would make them more efficient than ASP.NET developers using the same development model, since ASP.NET supports this model while CF doesn't. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
> No, it needn't be, if you're doing ASP.NET development. Have you tried > WebMatrix or SharpDevelop? Even without those free tools, it's not so bad > writing ASP.NET code in the editor of your choice, even Dreamweaver! It's > a > bit more verbose than CF, but I wouldn't call it cumbersome. ASP.NET 2.0 > is > even more tag-centric than the previous version, and has some nifty > changes > to the "code-behind" approach of separating logic from presentation. > My point is that CF without any tools provides RAD capabilities, while Java and .NET do not. Thus, I am making the assertion that if CF had the same kind of tooling as Java and .NET then its RAD capabilities would be greater increased. Do you disagree with this assertion? -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
> I was more referring to people on this list. However, I > really don't see how someone could argue .NET is a RAD > platform. I mean take away VS.NET and it is rather cumbersome. No, it needn't be, if you're doing ASP.NET development. Have you tried WebMatrix or SharpDevelop? Even without those free tools, it's not so bad writing ASP.NET code in the editor of your choice, even Dreamweaver! It's a bit more verbose than CF, but I wouldn't call it cumbersome. ASP.NET 2.0 is even more tag-centric than the previous version, and has some nifty changes to the "code-behind" approach of separating logic from presentation. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
> I suspect many .NET developers would not be comfortable with this notion, > actually. > I was more referring to people on this list. However, I really don't see how someone could argue .NET is a RAD platform. I mean take away VS.NET and it is rather cumbersome. -Matt [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: RAD (was RE: Best choice for ColdFusion Studio IDE...)
> Most people are comfortable with the notion that CFML is a > RAD platform, while Java and .NET are not. I suspect many .NET developers would not be comfortable with this notion, actually. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
