Brian LeRoux makes an observation about ColdFusion CFCs that I think is important: CFCs in ColdFusion shouldn't be thought of as a way to make CFML 100% object oriented. As far as I know, Macromedia never intended CFCs to make CFML perfect OO. That's what the Java support is for. If you want to incorporate true OOP into your CFML apps, CFCs will make a poor substitute for Java classes.

But on the other hand, with CFCs, you can get really close to OOP, and because you're using CFCs in CFML, a langauge designed around the statelessness of the web, why bother pulling in a lot of the complexity of true OOP?

Brian uses the saying in his article "When all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail." I don't think the saying works here. In fact, I don't think it supports any idea at all. Is Brian suggesting that ColdFusion is a hammer, or that CFCs are? Does he use the quote to suggest that because a lot of people like to use CFCs as if they're OOP that something bad is going to happen because of that? I don't get it.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345582c669e200d83420860953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CFCs != OOP:

» CFC: OOP ma non troppo from bellablog
Da quando in ColdFusion sono stati introdotti i CFC, noi sviluppatori CFML ci siamo sentiti importanti per via dello stile object oriented con cui potevamo sviluppare. E' vero, tuttavia, che quella dei CFC è una programmazione pseudo-OO, come sp... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 23, 2003 2:16:01 AM