is assembled allowing you
to decide what
portions are shown before they are rendered.
Just my 2pence
Kola
-Original Message-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 January 2005 13:50
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: better way to code?
In light of this discussion, how about lots
Johnny Le wrote:
There is a discussion right now in CF-Jobs-Talk called Indian Code. It says
I mentioned to the client that the code looked like it was done by a
first
month CF programmer. You know the type, pound signs everywhere, lots of CFIFs,
etc. Didn't say the code sucked or
..is that
what you meant?
Kola
-Original Message-
From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 January 2005 03:42
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: better way to code?
From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I shouldn't have given that specific example. My reason for
bringing
In light of this discussion, how about lots of cfif statements buried in
html...?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 8:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: better way to code?
Johnny
Just to clarify, are you referring to lots
]
Sent: 31 January 2005 13:50
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: better way to code?
In light of this discussion, how about lots of cfif statements buried in
html...?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 8:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Claude Schneegans wrote:
It seems to use the power of CF more.
It may be, but is it really what makes good code?
The first code is more intuitive , logical and it corresponds to the
real situation.
It explains more clearly the two situations that can be encountered.
The second code
Who says beginners code has a lot of cfif statements?
Probabily beginners ;-)
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
(Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Thanks.
but I still feel that I have too many CFIF in my code.
The quantity of IF statements has nothing to do with the quality of code.
Replacing them with CASE just for the sake of reducing the number of IF
is completely idle.
As someone pointed out, IF... ELSEIF reevaluates a conditional
expression
lots of CFIFs
If one mean CFIF used when something simpler could be used, then this is
true, but it is not particular to CFIF, one could say that any piece of
code that could be simpler and/or more efficient makes the code look
amateurish.
Too many CFSET could mean exactly the same thing if
I think the place I see too many if statements is for some
matchmatical figures. I can't honestly come up with one on a saturday
morning/afternoon after a long night of wedding planning but I have
seen code like if today is monday add 6 if today is tuesday add 5
ect... When they could have used
extensible.
Joe Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: better way to code?
I shouldn't have given that specific example. My reason for
bringing this whole issue up is that people say beginners' code
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is true to a certain extent, most logical conditions can
be related
to a data structure without conditions (If conditions) and in most
situation the data structure make the code/application extensible.
Joe... I don't follow you here??
I think I do and nicely put joei think like puting this.a=namea
snd this.b = nameb you have direct access to this.a to get the name
instead of loopoing through a result and going if current value eq b
output name. Am I following ya Joe?
Adam H
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:43:52 -0500, Michael T.
It seems to use the power of CF more.
It may be, but is it really what makes good code?
The first code is more intuitive , logical and it corresponds to the
real situation.
It explains more clearly the two situations that can be encountered.
The second code leads to think that the second case
wouldnt using cfcase cfswitch be more correct?
More correct, not really. CFCASE, as any case construct in any language,
is not any better than a simple IF ... ELSE
IMHO, CASE constructs can be better for three cases or more.
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom
On of java's pitfalls is file access, when compared to things like
PERL, so anything you can do to cut down on file acessing the better
so I would tend to say the first code with the IF would be better.
Adam H
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:43:07 -0500, Claude Schneegans
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It
More correct, not really. CFCASE, as any case construct in any language,
is not any better than a simple IF ... ELSE
IMHO, CASE constructs can be better for three cases or more.
It's good to keep in mind that CFSWITCH/CFCASE tests for multiple values of the
same expression, CFIF/CFELSEIF
It's good to keep in mind that CFSWITCH/CFCASE tests for multiple
values of the same expression, CFIF/CFELSEIF tests for multiple conditions.
Abolutely, this is why CFCASE may be more efficient than CFIF/CFELSEIF
if the expression is the same.
But a CFIF/CFELSE also evaluates only one
Actually, I did some reasonably comprehensive tests on CFMX 6.1
sometime last year, and found that this was NOT the case with CFMX's
implementation of CFML. Using CFSWITCH was noticably slower. I don't
remember the specifics for sure, but around 30% slower seems familiar
for some reason. Note
@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: better way to code?
Actually, I did some reasonably comprehensive tests on CFMX 6.1
sometime last year, and found that this was NOT the case with CFMX's
implementation of CFML. Using CFSWITCH was noticably slower. I don't
remember the specifics for sure, but around 30
I shouldn't have given that specific example. My reason for bringing this
whole issue up is that people say beginners' code has a lot of CFIF statements.
I am using Fusebox now. So it elimates a lot of CFIF statement already, but I
still feel that I have too many CFIF in my code. I am just
From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I shouldn't have given that specific example. My reason for
bringing this whole issue up is that people say beginners'
code has a lot of CFIF statements. I am using Fusebox now.
So it elimates a lot of CFIF statement already, but I still
feel
There is a discussion right now in CF-Jobs-Talk called Indian Code. It says
I mentioned to the client that the code looked like it was done by a first
month CF programmer. You know the type, pound signs everywhere, lots of CFIFs,
etc. Didn't say the code sucked or anything, just that it looked
Here's a link to the thread from last February about the relative
speed of the two constructs, including results of the test that I did.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/messages.cfm/Threadid=30474forumid=4
The results were pretty conclusive, even moreso than I remembered.
The tests
From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a discussion right now in CF-Jobs-Talk called
Indian Code. It says I mentioned to the client that the
code looked like it was done by a first month CF programmer.
You know the type, pound signs everywhere, lots of CFIFs,
etc. Didn't
I shouldn't have given that specific example. My reason for
bringing this whole issue up is that people say beginners'
code has a lot of CFIF statements. I am using Fusebox now.
So it elimates a lot of CFIF statement already, but I still
feel that I have too many CFIF in my code. I am
First one, second one should throw an error.
And I would make it
cfif left( url.dir, 2 ) IS E:
cfset variables.myPath = url.dir / url.inputfile /
cfelse
cfset variables.myPath = ExpandPath(url.dir) / url.inputfile
/
/cfif
cffile action=write file=#variables.myPath# output=
wouldnt using cfcase cfswitch be more correct?
From: Johnny Le [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 11:42 PM
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: better way to code?
Which method of programming do you consider is better?
This
I'd say that any application that allows file paths to come from the
URL is wrong, no matter the code. Second, any application that allows
mixed relative and absolute paths for the same file is asking for
trouble. And third, make sure you check for a leading / as well, or
you code will puke on
29 matches
Mail list logo
