3 ms·

Verbosity is totally a pain. Interestingly, I didn't know ECMAscript (aka Javascript) is too verbose for folks out there. It turns out that CFML has two synta

Verbosity is totally a pain. Interestingly, I didn't know ECMAscript (aka Javascript) is too verbose for folks out there. It turns out that CFML has two syntaxes, script and tag. The tag based html-type that's being discussed here, and and cfscript. Cfscript is is nearly identical to javascript and based on ECMAscript. Several languages follow ECMAscript. In a way, if you know HTML and Javascript, any language should be easier to pick up than a language that looks completely different from HTML and Javascript, no? Googled and found: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ColdFusion/9.0/CFMLRef/WSc3ff6d0ea77859461172e0811cbec22c24-7ebf.html http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ColdFusion/9.0/CFMLRef/WSc3ff6d0... ECMAscript: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript

ebiester 15y ago
I thought that the CFML was the tag language and CFscript was considered separate, and this particular project didn't take advantage of CFscript, but looking around, people aren't too keen on the interfaces given to CFscript, even today. http://www.clearcrystalmedia.com/pm/full-cfscript-cfcs-not-where-they-need-to-be/ http://www.clearcrystalmedia.com/pm/full-cfscript-cfcs-not-w... http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm/2011/2/4/I-Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-CFSCRIPT http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm/2011/2/4/I-Am-Not-A-Fan-... I can speak to a similar adobe product, Flex (and MXML/ActionScript) and at least there, Adobe tried to figure out what would make most sense in MXML, and then the ActionScript interface fell out of that, rather than what made sense for an ActionScript interface. Then, Adobe pointed everyone to the MXML as documentation, rather than having a separate documentation for ActionScript. However, things didn't work exactly the same. Perhaps life is better in CFland, but Adobe has seemed to have "good enough? Then ship! Our devs will figure out workarounds." in their DNA. Looking at this thread -- http://forums.adobe.com/thread/507720 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/507720 -- it seems ColdFusion is no exception.

ebiester 15y ago

I thought that the CFML was the tag language and CFscript was considered separate, and this particular project didn't take advantage of CFscript, but looking around, people aren't too keen on the interfaces given to CFscript, even today. http://www.clearcrystalmedia.com/pm/full-cfscript-cfcs-not-where-they-need-to-be/ http://www.clearcrystalmedia.com/pm/full-cfscript-cfcs-not-w... http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm/2011/2/4/I-Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-CFSCRIPT http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm/2011/2/4/I-Am-Not-A-Fan-... I can speak to a similar adobe product, Flex (and MXML/ActionScript) and at least there, Adobe tried to figure out what would make most sense in MXML, and then the ActionScript interface fell out of that, rather than what made sense for an ActionScript interface. Then, Adobe pointed everyone to the MXML as documentation, rather than having a separate documentation for ActionScript. However, things didn't work exactly the same. Perhaps life is better in CFland, but Adobe has seemed to have "good enough? Then ship! Our devs will figure out workarounds." in their DNA. Looking at this thread -- http://forums.adobe.com/thread/507720 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/507720 -- it seems ColdFusion is no exception.