Comments on Dale Fraser's Blog: ColdFusion IS Object Oriented

Ok, if CF is not OO why do MachII and Model Glue l...

2007-11-15T07:51:00.000+11:00

Ok, if CF is not OO why do MachII and Model Glue lay claim to being OO?

What's up with that? Are they not OO?

"Mach-II is a powerful, object-oriented, open source MVC framework for ColdFusion that focuses on easing software development and maintenance."

"The Model-Glue family of frameworks support Web application developers by making the construction of Object-Oriented Web and Rich Internet Applications a straightforward process."

IMHO
Flex or Flash, ie. Action Script could be ...

2007-08-21T02:05:00.000+10:00

IMHO
Flex or Flash, ie. Action Script could be concidered more of an object oriented language, but not Coldfusion CFML. However, CFML has some similar charecteristics of an OO language and can imitate OO patterns. So can PHP and even Perl.

Gotcha huh. Perl is an OO language, or is it? It all depends on the state of an application. If an application has a dynamic state, the language used is OO as long as it has OO capabilities. In contrast, if an application has a static state, even if the language is "OO", it is no longer technically OO. So Perl used as script for a web site makes Perl in that case non-OO. But use Perl to program a Windows desktop application and suddenly it is OO again.

Frankly, I think that people's ideas and definition of OO is in question and needs to be re-evaluated at length. What is OO? CFML can be used to model objects in the real world, abstract ideas, and encapsulate and extend functionality, isn't that the idea of OO?

My suggestion is another definition such as 'Dynamic OOP' and 'Static OOP'. Dynamic would be traditional where static would be for the new web apps of today.

Collectively, this is an excellent thread. Thanks...

2007-08-16T05:18:00.000+10:00

Collectively, this is an excellent thread. Thanks to Dale for getting it started...

If Ben said to jump off a cliff I'm guessing you w...

2007-07-12T03:11:00.000+10:00

If Ben said to jump off a cliff I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem jumping.

It is funny that you argue with Adobe (a la Ben) w...

2007-07-12T02:35:00.000+10:00

It is funny that you argue with Adobe (a la Ben) when they say it is not OO. What does Adobe know? They only develop the platform. Saying it is OO does not make it OO. You can do OO but OO is not required as it is in other languages.

BTW, why use webmonkey when Ray Camden has a CF survey product? :)

This reminds me of a debate I had many years ago w...

2007-07-12T01:18:00.000+10:00

This reminds me of a debate I had many years ago with one of my friends on whether or not C++ was an OO language.

My answer was it depends on how you use the language and what definition you mean when you say OO language.

I think the same could be said of Coldfusion. C++ does not force you to do OOP but many still consider that language to be an OO language.

If by OO language you mean that the language supports OO patterns and design, then I think Coldfusion would for the most part fit this definition.

In regards to Ben's Java comments, Coldfusion is ran on top of Java. This fact alone makes it virtually impossible to convince me at least that Java and CF are 100% independent of each other. With such a strong tie between CF and Java, it's hard to seriously say CF is not an OO language. Statements like that make me laugh...

As mentioned here

http://www.andyscott.id.a...

2007-07-11T10:43:00.000+10:00

As mentioned here

http://www.andyscott.id.au/index.cfm/2007/7/10/Is-Coldfusion-Obejct-Oriented

Coldfusion itself is not OO, I mean how in the hell can you take a tag like cfdirectory and apply an OO style to it?

Or lets take the CFForm, OO would mean that this would entirely be OO. And it isn't.

The introduction of CFC's and components has allowed for a developer to apply design patterns, that conform to OO style of programming but the language itself is not OO.

Eveyone has to stop and think about this for a minute, CFC's can be programmed without the style of OO try doing that with java, but you can also apply the concept of OO to CFC's thus making it universal to everyones needs.

Don't look at one aspect of the language and judge it to be OO, look at the entire language and the fact remains, Coldfusion as a language is not OO.

Like I said, OO means that I can expand upon what is already there, I can not extend Coldfusion tags or built in functions and they do not behave like OO and can't be used to program in OO styles either.

Give it a rest, Coldfusion is not OO it allows for design petterns to be applied.

Enough said.

What do we mean when we say "Object Oriented"?
...

2007-07-11T04:02:00.000+10:00

What do we mean when we say "Object Oriented"?

I think that fundamental definition is missing in this discussion.

I don't know if there is a canonical definition. It seems like some of the posters here have one, and Coldfusion doesn't match it.

According to Wikipedia:
"Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm that uses "objects" to design applications and computer programs. It can use several techniques from previously established paradigms, including inheritance, modularity, polymorphism, and encapsulation."

It's clear that Coldfusion allows (but does not require) a paradigm that uses "objects" to design applications. And I think we would all agree that Coldfusion supports inheritance, modularity, polymorphism, and encapsulation.

So help me out, people who say CF is not Object Oriented-- what's your definition? Is it just the fact that the OO techniques are optional? Yes, there are languages out there that are pure OO-- where you can't run a single line of code without creating an object. CF clearly isn't one of those. But is that the distinction or is it something else?

"It has createObject(), which can make things with...

2007-07-11T03:06:00.000+10:00

"It has createObject(), which can make things with properties and methods -
therefore it has objects, therefore it's OO.
I'd love to talk to people who said no." -Falken

Has to be one of the most ill-informed statements I've heard in awhile (since reading the title of this post on my RSS reader). I agree with Ben, Ray, Sean, and even 'Anonymous'. CF is not Object-oriented. CF is decidedly not OO, and people who know the language and are familiar with OO concepts don't claim it to be. Good luck-

> 1. Do you consider ColdFusion to be Object Or...

2007-07-10T23:57:00.000+10:00

> 1. Do you consider ColdFusion to be Object Oriented?

It has createObject(), which can make things with properties and methods -
therefore it has objects, therefore it's OO.
I'd love to talk to people who said no.

> 2. What percentage do you think ColdFusion achieves the ability to code OO
> style.

See 1.

> 3. Would you like the Adobe ColdFusion team to further develop ColdFusion
> OO features?

A no brainer 'yes' as the question is just 'do you want ColdFusion to have
more features'. It does not say 'at the expense of non-OO features (like
cfprint)', which would be far less likely to get a positive response.

> 4. What is the number one feature missing from ColdFusion from an OO point
> of view?
> None / Pass: 52%
> Overloading: 16%
> Constructors: 10%

CF already has overloading (don't give cfargument a type parameter, or leave
out cfargument all together) - so I'd love to hear from people who plumbed
for that one :-)
I went for Constructors myself, as all we've got is a sort of half-baked
almost by accident convention.

> Overriding: 4%
> Interfaces: 4%
> Serialization: 2%

CF has these already, see overloading above.

> Multiple Inheritance: 2%

You do not want this. It's the wrong solution to composition.

> So ColdFusion is Object Oriented after all, I have always thought so and am
> supported by the numbers,

You're not supported- there is no proof you have a representative sample, and
I'd argue the poll was open for way too short a window as well.
Lies, damn lies and statistics, right ? :-)

I think all of the OO-esque features that have bee...

2007-07-10T23:37:00.000+10:00

I think all of the OO-esque features that have been added to CF are fantastic. I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying that ColdFusion is an OO language, simply because ColdFusion does not force you to adopt OO design patterns (like most OO languages).

However, there are two sides of the fence here and I wish we could stay away from statements like "ColdFusion is X" or "ColdFusion isn't X". There are a lot of experienced ColdFusion developers who want CF to have more OO features and there are a lot of non-ColdFusion developers who won't event try ColdFusion because it isn't 'true' OO.

On the other hand there are a huge number of developers who love ColdFusion because it's not rocket science. We certainly don't want to force OO into the language at the sacrifice of ease and productivity.

The bottom line is that ColdFusion is both procedural and OO. It's really up to each and every developer to decide if the ColdFusion code they write is OO or not. For me, thats one of the greatest benefits ColdFusion has over .NET and Java. Developers are truly free to code applications in their own way (for better or worse).

I really hope we continue to add OO-esque features to the language where it makes sense (as long as it's 100% optional).

-Adam

I think Brian makes a good point. The survey and t...

2007-07-10T22:56:00.000+10:00

I think Brian makes a good point. The survey and the answers to "Is CF OO?" is merely a collection of opinions.

It's like asking "Is CF easy?" My wife would say no. An experienced programmer who knows several languages would say yes. It all depends on your perspective.

The question of "Is CF an OO language?" could be answered once and for all, but only if we all agreed on the definition an OO language is.

As Sean has said, some are saying it has to be like Java. But there are other non-Java-like OO languages. So until everyone agrees on a definition, we will all be stating our opinion.

I think the idea of using a survey to back up one...

2007-07-10T22:30:00.000+10:00

I think the idea of using a survey to back up one's position as to whether or not CF is OO is a bit odd. Surveys can help you ascertain beliefs and opinions, not facts.

Someone mentioned a survey about the Iraq war as an example of how the majority can be wrong: I think a better example would be the "Is the World Flat" survey in the late 1500s :).

And no, outsiders are not going to see the survey as proof that CF is OO. They're going to see it and wonder why CF programmers need to ask the question in the first place ("Don't they know their own language?").

I don't know what the "accepted" definition of OO is, but if I were to take the term "object-oriented" literally, I would then assume that an object-oriented language is one where all of the aspects of the language are geared/purposed ("oriented") towards the use and manipulation of objects (entities/constructs containing data and functions for acting upon or exposing that data).

Under that definition, CF is NOT object-oriented. I can create and use objects in CF if I choose (and I find myself using them more and more), but I can create whole applications without using a single object if I so choose: the language does not, by its nature, force me to use objects.

I don't think they will overly complicate things, ...

2007-07-10T20:56:00.000+10:00

I don't think they will overly complicate things, I actually thought they had done that when they introduced CFC's but in reality it makes things easier.

Future OO features won't necessarily complicate things, as you don't have to use them, interfaces is a good example. A bit complicated to understand but you don't have to use them.

But once you understand them, you may find a need.

I really hope that Adobe doesn't make ColdFusion s...

2007-07-10T20:41:00.000+10:00

I really hope that Adobe doesn't make ColdFusion so OO that it is unneccessarily complicated to use. I like it because it is simple enough to use, yet flexible enough to use OO procedures where necessary.

Over 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had someth...

2007-07-10T20:19:00.000+10:00

Over 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with the September 11th attacks. I guess that makes it so.

I'm going to disagree with Ben on a specific point...

2007-07-10T18:44:00.000+10:00

I'm going to disagree with Ben on a specific point here: he says "if you want real object oriented development you have that already, it's called Java".

That's the root of a lot of CFers problems with OO. Java is NOT the definition of OO. It happens to be one OO language with a particular set of features. Smalltalk is a much better example when discussing CF because Smalltalk is, like CF, a dynamic language. So is Ruby - very much today's darling (even among Java programmers).

Anyone who views Java as the "real OO" is completely limiting themselves. Smalltalk and Ruby are dynamically typed, they don't have interfaces, they don't have a lot of the features that Java has but that's because THEY DON'T NEED THEM!

CF is a very powerful language that has open classes (like many other dynamic OO languages - so you can add / change instance methods). CF also has dynamic variable binding (again, like many other dynamic OO languages). Java has neither of those features.

CF's dynamic typing makes it much easier to build mock objects for unit testing because you don't have to subvert the type system (in Java you are forced into stuff like having mocks extend real objects and then overriding every method to add the behavior you need - in CF, using duck typing lets you simply substitute a mock object that implements whatever methods are needed for the test).

With CF8's onMissingMethod(), CF gains a powerful feature that Smalltalk and Ruby have had for a long time: the ability of an object to respond to arbitrary messages (methods) and behave as a dynamic proxy. Java cannot do that.

It's hard to believe that 66% of the people survey...

2007-07-10T17:42:00.001+10:00

It's hard to believe that 66% of the people surveyed think that Coldfusion is OO.

Only if one defines OO as the ability to create components, extend other components (lets leave out threading and interfaces since its cf8) and employ "OO-like" development methodologies can one claim that CF is OO.

I like the fact that I can cherry pick (thanks Ben) but am not forced to employ OO programming when I need to create something simple.

I also don't think CF should become an OO language. I don't think OO and RAD can be in the same sentence , and CF is and should remain a high class RAD tool.

It's hard to believe that 66% of the people survey...

2007-07-10T17:42:00.000+10:00

Well it seems I am a little late on the subject, a...

2007-07-10T17:09:00.000+10:00

Well it seems I am a little late on the subject, and as Ben Forta sums it all up.

http://www.andyscott.id.au/index.cfm/2007/7/10/Is-Coldfusion-Obejct-Oriented

Due to Ray linking to this blog, i've reopened the...

2007-07-10T14:15:00.000+10:00

Due to Ray linking to this blog, i've reopened the Survey.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=vFsaAhAI9bGA0MKKJ99eQw_3d_3d

@darth aren't you supposed to be opposed to the Je...

2007-07-10T13:58:00.000+10:00

@darth aren't you supposed to be opposed to the Jedi (ray) :P

@Ray & Ben, interested if you even feel that CF is OO capable, as if it isn't I have no idea what kind of code we are writing.

The Sith greatly frown upon those that feel OO in ...

2007-07-10T13:50:00.000+10:00

The Sith greatly frown upon those that feel OO in CF is the way to go because it sounds important.

Many Lords in the Empire come from an OO background using pure OO language and have switched to CF - because it's a language that gets the job done nice, fast, and clean.

Operator Overloading...bah... use the power of the darkside.

@Boyzoid, I agree, OO Capable.

@Anonymous, ...

2007-07-10T13:48:00.000+10:00

@Boyzoid, I agree, OO Capable.

@Anonymous, don't be embarrased by your opinion, as you obviously are as to not quote any real name. I have developed in Java & C#. If you read the Survey I never said or asked if CF was pure OO I know it's not even 100% capable, thus the second % capable question.

It's interesting that you think CF can have some usefull OO features withing being OO capable.

Thanks Ben and Ray for posting follow ups to this ...

2007-07-10T13:26:00.000+10:00

Thanks Ben and Ray for posting follow ups to this post. I almost pulled my hair out. CF is not object oriented. But that doesn't make it "lesser" with respect to its goals as a language for developing a class of scalable web applications efficiently.

One of the great things about the CF community is its enthusiasm, but one of the downsides to the rapid pace of adoption it enables is that often times people in its community make false claims related to engineering web applications out of a complete lack of understanding. It really makes me embarrassed in some circles to say I'm in that community when people make statements like this and then continue to try and defend them. What's worse, a poll of users vote in the MAJORITY that CF is OO when it is not. OO Features, yes... OO language, no way.

Dale, if you want to hear the objective truth, from your post and your reply to Ben/Ray, you don't know what you're talking about. I say this not to be flippant, but you should genuinely try writing some code in an object-oriented language like Ruby, Java, (even C# or some object oriented JavaScript) or even reading a book about engineering an object oriented app before continuing to claim a level of knowledge that clearly isn't there.

CF has some useful OO features. It is NOT an Object Oriented language, nor "OO-capable".

Comments on Dale Fraser's Blog: ColdFusion IS Object Oriented

Ok, if CF is not OO why do MachII and Model Glue l...

IMHOFlex or Flash, ie. Action Script could be ...

Collectively, this is an excellent thread. Thanks...

If Ben said to jump off a cliff I'm guessing you w...

It is funny that you argue with Adobe (a la Ben) w...

This reminds me of a debate I had many years ago w...

As mentioned herehttp://www.andyscott.id.a...

What do we mean when we say "Object Oriented"?...

"It has createObject(), which can make things with...

> 1. Do you consider ColdFusion to be Object Or...

I think all of the OO-esque features that have bee...

I think Brian makes a good point. The survey and t...

I think the idea of using a survey to back up one...

I don't think they will overly complicate things, ...

I really hope that Adobe doesn't make ColdFusion s...

Over 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had someth...

I'm going to disagree with Ben on a specific point...

It's hard to believe that 66% of the people survey...

It's hard to believe that 66% of the people survey...

Well it seems I am a little late on the subject, a...

Due to Ray linking to this blog, i've reopened the...

@darth aren't you supposed to be opposed to the Je...

The Sith greatly frown upon those that feel OO in ...

@Boyzoid, I agree, OO Capable.@Anonymous, ...

Thanks Ben and Ray for posting follow ups to this ...

IMHO
Flex or Flash, ie. Action Script could be ...

As mentioned here

http://www.andyscott.id.a...

What do we mean when we say "Object Oriented"?
...

@Boyzoid, I agree, OO Capable.

@Anonymous, ...