Lol. I understood the implication of your "quotes", no need to explain social norms to me. I chose to ignore it because it was irrelevant, but since you want to keep bringing it up... I "got your drift".
You've never worked in DC, I take it? Perhaps you've never been in any large city with an above average population of these so called "5 taggers" that you think is pure myth and hyperbole?
CFML is embedded in our (US) government, there probably isn't a single agency that doesn't have one or more applications written in CFML. It is Adobe's largest market, by far. Lucee has a smaller but useful following there as well. Our government contractors are infamous for pouring warm bodies with minimal pre-qualifications for minimal pay into positions which allow that caliber of developer to touch, if not build, utter monstrosities.
Why do you think developers in other languages have a general disdain for ColdFusion? It is precisely because of all the ugly as
[insert favorite explicative here] spaghetti code they've had to migrate organizations away from that was left behind by these "mythical creatures".
The people you see here in the forums, on Slack, at user groups and at conferences are a very small subset of a very large group of people. You have to consider this in your decision making. Just because you, and a hand full of others, have voiced support for this feature does not mean it should automatically get a pass.
My arguments are both warranted and reasonable. If a hand full of people get this feature because
[reasons] then I predict it will ultimately be yet another nail in the CFML coffin.
I'm really beginning to wonder why I'm even wasting my time having to explain how nuanced this change really is and why it is important to have discussions about the ramifications of broad sweeping changes to the way a language works, but here I am. Defending sanity.
Real life developers do this all the time in every language. It is only after careful consideration that changes to the way a language works are even considered, usually in an effort to move the language forward, not backwards as 'real life develoeprs' here have proposed.
And I thanked him for his contribution and we discussed the ramifications of the change and agreed that full parsing was not preferential.
Yeah... sometimes language designers have difficult choices to make. Sometimes those decisions mean more labor is required to bring the feature in line with what that language ought to allow. Sometimes that makes it more difficult to maintain that code over the long haul than it would be to simply ignore the problems. It sucks, but you can either put forth the best product you can, or you can throw a bunch of band-aids on and let 'er rip.
I'm sorry you think they ought to just let 'er rip, but I do not. It is butchering the language to solve problems that should be solved in different ways. Fix the problems, specifically, if you want to build a decent language - don't throw this band-aid solution at the problems is all I'm suggesting.
Yes, it would be my personal preference that CFML tags not be allowed inside cfscript to solve unrelated problems and create a giant FUBAR way of developing that will be stuck with Lucee forever. A broad sweeping change that takes the language backwards because a handful of people think its nifty.
render() was an attempt to solve a different problem and has a different implementation. It shouldn't have been added either as far as I'm concerned, but now we're stuck with it and it also doesn't pose the potential for abuse that this particular change would allow.
Make no mistake, this is a change that has consequences. Just because you fail to see those consequences manifest in your experience does not mean those consequences do not exist, and it doesn't mean that my concerns are mythical or hyperbolic. Your assertions that my concerns should be dismissed amuse me, frankly.
All that said, at the end of the day I have zero control over what LAS does or does not do with their version of the language. I'm just forewarning those who refuse to see the danger that the danger exists and should be considered before making such a sweeping change to how the language can be built. I'm suggesting that solving the individual problems that people have suggested this magic bullet would solve is the better approach to those problems.