4 ms·

All the ColdFusion code I've ran into still exists because it's too rotten of a mess to be replaced. It tends to be very procedural code with lots of "librarie

All the ColdFusion code I've ran into still exists because it's too rotten of a mess to be replaced. It tends to be very procedural code with lots of "libraries" that rely on side-effects rather than abstraction. The kind of thing where nobody understands how core concerns (like security) work, they just "know" it seems to work. Except those in the know, know that it doesn't always work, but it's all too fragile to fix it, either. I know I've been extremely unlucky with the CF code I've had to deal with, but I've also never heard of anybody with a healthy CF codebase they aren't eager to replace.

bluetwo 10y ago
I maintain a large codebase for an application that has been around for longer than a decade in CF. I love it. I have also, over the years, been brought in to rescue applications that have grown into giant messes. So I'm not saying what you are saying is incorrect, but it has less to do with the language, in my opinion, and more to do with what happens to large applications that get written by multiple teams of people over the years, as they adapt to changing customer demands. And, sometimes, by managers who don't understand code, the importance of documentation, or how to communicate and plan for business issues. Build an app in any web application today and try to maintain it for a decade.
- lostapathy 10y ago
  I agree, it's not really the language's fault. I'm involved with more than one application that's over a decade old, so I understand what happens. My point is that a lot of the things still running around in ColdFusion aren't there because they're healthy, they're around because they are too sick to do anything else with. I've got too much personal experience with applications used by the government that I sure would not trust with my personal data! You know, things written before password hashing was standard practice ... and that still don't hash passwords.
ambicapter 10y ago
Why would you want to replace a "healthy" codebase?
- lostapathy 10y ago
  You wouldn't. I'm just observing that none of the CF I've had to deal with is healthy - it's all a mess they want to replace. Probably poor wording in my prior comment that was hard to parse as intended, apologies.
- askvictor 10y ago
  To take advantage of modern technologies? To be able to hire coders? That's two off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty of arguments both ways. Presumably if your codebase is healthy, there is structure and documentation that would make it comparatively easy to replace in a different framework as requirements evolve. Unhealthy codebases don't have this so that stick around without adapting/evolving

bluetwo 10y ago

I maintain a large codebase for an application that has been around for longer than a decade in CF. I love it. I have also, over the years, been brought in to rescue applications that have grown into giant messes. So I'm not saying what you are saying is incorrect, but it has less to do with the language, in my opinion, and more to do with what happens to large applications that get written by multiple teams of people over the years, as they adapt to changing customer demands. And, sometimes, by managers who don't understand code, the importance of documentation, or how to communicate and plan for business issues. Build an app in any web application today and try to maintain it for a decade.

lostapathy 10y ago
I agree, it's not really the language's fault. I'm involved with more than one application that's over a decade old, so I understand what happens. My point is that a lot of the things still running around in ColdFusion aren't there because they're healthy, they're around because they are too sick to do anything else with. I've got too much personal experience with applications used by the government that I sure would not trust with my personal data! You know, things written before password hashing was standard practice ... and that still don't hash passwords.

ambicapter 10y ago

Why would you want to replace a "healthy" codebase?

lostapathy 10y ago
You wouldn't. I'm just observing that none of the CF I've had to deal with is healthy - it's all a mess they want to replace. Probably poor wording in my prior comment that was hard to parse as intended, apologies.
askvictor 10y ago
To take advantage of modern technologies? To be able to hire coders? That's two off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty of arguments both ways. Presumably if your codebase is healthy, there is structure and documentation that would make it comparatively easy to replace in a different framework as requirements evolve. Unhealthy codebases don't have this so that stick around without adapting/evolving