One thing I would like to see in ColdFusion 9 is the bringing together of ActionScript and CFML. The more similarities the better for all concerned.
Having worked with a lot of Flex recently, I love ActionScript and would love in particular to see ColdFusion introduce Static Classes.
While Im on my wish list, a couple nice things that would be easy to implement, and save some confusion.
They should introduce a new tag
<cfclass
which is exactly the same as <cfcomponent but with a different name, the reason being, is that the names are confusing.
In ActionScript a Class is a Class and a Component is something different.
In ColdFusion a Class is a Component and a Component is a Class.
Not sure why they didn't name it like this from the start, at least the extension is correct, (CFC = ColdFusion Class)
8 comments:
Are you sure?
CFC = Coldfusion Component is what I was always told :) That is afterall why there is a cfcomponent tag at the top and thats has to be the very first tag, try and put something above the cfcomponent tag and cf chokes.
Personally I would like to see the end of the cfcomponent tag all together. if I have a CFC why then do I need to have a cfcomponent tag?
I'm more looking forward to advancements in the coldfusion scripting language than in the tag based language quite honestly. I would like to see the CFscript language become a fully fledged language and just have the tags for the presentation layer.
I think it would be better if CF tags were more like MXML and not adding in more tags such as cfclass. The big difference between CF and Flex is that you can see how components/MXML is implemented in Flex but you can't with CF. You can't see the java implementation for each CF tag and for moment I don't see Adobe changing that.
@gary,
I agree I would like to remove it all together also. The ability to write a class with no tags is the ideal scenario.
I hate to see this "AS in CF" topic come up again. If you want all these features, why not just build your server-side in Java? Developers need to grow up and realize that although CF is a great tool, it is not always the best tool for the job. If you want more hardcore OO development, go to a truly OO language.
@Andrew,
No thanks, I have had my fair share of Java experiences and while I like the language and the syntax.
The amount of time, and effort to write an application would be at least 5 fold compared to ColdFusion.
I think that you really discount tools like Spring and Hibernate. They make application development as fast as anything you could do in CF in a pure OO approach.
@Andrew,
I have managed development teams in both Java & ColdFusion.
And having frameworks such as Spring and Hibernate (which are also availble to ColdFusion) doesnt solve any of the problems that I have exeperienced first hand.
While I don't agree to Andrew about Java development being as fast as CF development, I definitely hope that CFML is NOT going to become more like AS.
CFML is a dynamic language, that has absolutely no need for strong typing and similar language "features".
I think we should rather take full advantage of the dynamic nature of CFML instead of trying to force the concepts of other languages into it.
And as for "full cfscript support", well, personally I could do completely without CFSCript, because actually I never use it.
CFML's biggest advantage always was that it is so easy to learn and to advance beyond the basics. If Adobe decides to add strong typing, Java-like interfaces, etc. it'll be no easier to learn than, e.g. Java.
CFML isn't Java or Action Script after all. Fortunately it isn't. Let's keep it this way.
Post a Comment