All new features lucee 5 has are available in both dialects…
MichaOn Thursday, April 23, 2015, Kai Koenig <@Kai_Koenig> wrote:
A lot of the arguments are valid — in an academic world of
object-orientedness.
In such a world, functional programming would be wrong either.
The reality is: the concept of static can be useful in a variety of
scenarios, similarly to a Singleton (which is according to some people also
the root of all evil — and it can be, but it depends on the use case).
Anyway, happy for Lucee to have that now.
My question to Andrew and the LAS though is: Do I understand it correctly
that this is and will be available in Lucee’s CFML dialect or is that going
to be a .lucee feature?
Cheers
Kai
I’m just going to roll this hand grenade into the room and walk away.
The limitations static methods have when it comes to DI could be mitigated
by Ryan’s suggestion here:
I think being able to reference classes & static methods dynamically is a
very CFMLish idea, and would be quite handy.
Certainly in our own work we are very cautious about using static methods
before of the barriers they throw up to testing. And I’ve yet encountered a
case for static properties (over just constants, which we do use). But a
mutable value shared across all instances of a class? Nah, I don’t think
there’s many good use cases for that.
Anyway, my main point was go have a look @ Ryan’s E/R.On Thursday, 23 April 2015 03:30:19 UTC+1, James Holmes wrote:
out of curiosity i did a count of the keyword static in the Java Runtime
Enviroment (Version 5, was the newest source i had), they use the keyword
static 35975 times
MichaOn Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:30 AM, James Holmes <@James_Holmes> wrote:
I’m just going to roll this hand grenade into the room and walk away.
Is there a RSS feed we can subscribe to for the lucee blog?
JeanOn Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Michael Offner <@Michael_Offner> wrote:
In my opinion static is like salt, you need it to survive but you should
not take to much of it, in other words don’t overdo it.
In my opinion this arguments also only have some ground on strict oo
language like Java but not on languages like cfml or php.
Micha
On Thursday, April 23, 2015, James Holmes <@James_Holmes> wrote:
I’m just going to roll this hand grenade into the room and walk away.
A lot of the arguments are valid — in an academic world of object-orientedness.
In such a world, functional programming would be wrong either.
The reality is: the concept of static can be useful in a variety of scenarios, similarly to a Singleton (which is according to some people also the root of all evil — and it can be, but it depends on the use case).
Anyway, happy for Lucee to have that now.
My question to Andrew and the LAS though is: Do I understand it correctly that this is and will be available in Lucee’s CFML dialect or is that going to be a .lucee feature?
Cheers
Kai> I’m just going to roll this hand grenade into the room and walk away.
Is there a RSS feed we can subscribe to for the lucee blog?
Last time someone asked (a coupla weeks back) the person who could switch
this on or make it happen or whatever was out of the office until the
following week (I suspect it was Dom?). It’s probably not on their radar
though. It’d be a great help though, as it’s how I track blogs still. Call
me old-school.On Thursday, 23 April 2015 07:59:01 UTC+1, jmoniatte wrote:
In my opinion static is like salt, you need it to survive but you should
not take to much of it, in other words don’t overdo it.
In my opinion this arguments also only have some ground on strict oo
language like Java but not on languages like cfml or php.
MichaOn Thursday, April 23, 2015, James Holmes <@James_Holmes> wrote:
I’m just going to roll this hand grenade into the room and walk away.
out of curiosity i did a count of the keyword static in the Java Runtime
Enviroment (Version 5, was the newest source i had), they use the keyword
static 35975 times
Yup.
As per that link that I posted regarding Betteridge’s Law. In general when
a headline asks a question like “Am I confident of the basis of this
article?”, one can immediately assume the answer is “no”.
If the author was sure of himself, the article title would be “Static
Methods/Variables are bad practice” rather than “Are Static
Methods/Variables bad practice?”
Still: it’s food for thought.
I’d rather have and not need, than need and not have.On Thursday, 23 April 2015 08:47:36 UTC+1, Micha wrote:
–
Adam
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:30 AM, James Holmes <james....@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:
I’m just going to roll this hand grenade into the room and walk away.