Allaire and Microsoft have comprehensive and easy to read documentation that excel at teaching people how to use their platform.
Let me compare Allaire docs for CF 4.5 to PHP 4.0. The Allaire books give comprehensive examples for each of their functions, in the context of the programing environment in their reference manual. For new releases, they have a well-written document that explain the new features they added, as well as bugs that have been reported, etc. They also supplement this with books teaching the basics.
I go to www.php.net. I want to find the new features in 4.0 on their site. Haven't been able to find it. The documentation for using COM objects just says ???. In my opinion, that's inexcusable. Plus, they don't really teach the concepts either.
Maybe you have a problem with the "encrypted string" functions. Having the source code to the product is not as important to me--since it's not likely something I can manipulate. It's having documentation that aims at the new user and is as complete as possible.
And the whole point I was saying is, if people developing software are not writing proper docs so other people can join the geek club, imagine how it is for the non-geek to move from OS to OS.
Dude, I have two college degrees. One was Associate of Arts in Computers and Information Systems, the other was a Bachelor of Arts in Management Information Systems.
I learned concepts such as statistics, accounting, programming theory, operational mathematics, systems analysis and design, and database theory and concepts.
Sadly, all they taught was COBOL and dBASE III. That was in the late 80's.
Why are you so elitist. What makes you better than me? I apply my skills and knowledge and make sure I create professional applications.
The fact of the matter is, people like you created these high-level languages so people like us would be able to do more computer work. That is the whole point of developing 4GLs, languages, and applications servers such as SQL, VBScript, JavaScript, PHP, and Cold Fusion.
We all shouldn't have to deal with compliers, multi-threading, and assembly code, now, should we?
One of the biggest problems, however, is the fact that learning a computer takes a lot more time and is done at an older age than learning to walk or potty training. Driving is also pretty much a neural activity.
In other words, nothing you stated requires a college course.
Computers have yet to become that good. I mean, a lot of people get confused with a VCR, much less a computer.
I have experienced this rather sad elitism myself, on a different level. I occupy what I call a "middle tier" of programmer--one who has a good working knowledge of high-level languages such as CFML, VBScript, and SQL, but has a lot of trouble dealing with lower level ones like C+ and Java.
Another big problem is that the higher up on the "elite knowledge food chain" you are, the harder it seems to be to communicate with those in need of training. I have found that the commercial products like Microsoft and Allaire have better documentation and teaching tools than anything from the open source movement.
Thus, I think there is merit in comments about usability and seeing the corporate view as a whole before undertaking a quest to remove Office from the workplace.
Ultimately, the goal of computers are to be used as tools for the masses to business, entertainment, education, and research. Our ultimate goal is for them to be used by as many people as possible. That involves making them easy to use, and not just reserved for a select few members of a cyber-intellegensia.
I'm only dabbling in the book, but you are correct. Even the first book you mentioned gave me more than the php.net docs.
But Shouldn't php.net have that type of documentation in the first place? Ideally, I shouldn't have to go to a third party for the stuff I need. Microsoft and Allaire have that type of documentation either in the box or via some well-written help files/on-line docs.
In my mind, until we get stuff of similar quality from a few of the open source projects, I'll take the commercial packages over the free or open source ones. After all--it's not my concern over which philosophy of software wins--it's what tool is easiest to use.
When I get Allaire docs, I receive at least two good books. A reference manual, which has all the docs sorted by function/tag. And a training manual, which explains the basics.
Both, I believe, are important.
On the PHP web site, I reviewed the PHP code. However, it was not very good for casual reading--a case of a web page actually being harder than a book.
The acid test for me was to find out how to do the basics--which in my mind is to connect to a database. Coming from an application where all you need to do is write straightforward SQL within a tag with no other stuff, I found it hard to find information about how to access my database.
The ODBC section had functions, but since it was listed in manual format it was a bit difficult to see an example as you would write it.
Once I purchased a few PHP books, it became easy. But that's the key thing I am concerned about.
Allaire may cost me more money, but that training manual was well worth it, and it is easier to install and configure. Granted, PHP may actually be a powerful platform, but from what I've seen when I looked at the core provider--it focused more on functions and less on explaining things. What IS a sephamore, for instance?
That's where I have found certain areas lacking. Sometimes the reference manuals for languages are a little too "insider". And yes, there are other alternative sources out there--but it should fall upon the people who create the software, not a third party.
Documentation is important--not just the reference manual either. I am critical of an Allaire project called Spectra because the docs for that aren't as well written as the CF Docs. Sometimes, that makes all the difference.
It's rather elitist to say people who use VB or other "high level" languages are "professional programmers".
Just a little bit of background. I had a Bachelor of Arts in MIS. I graduated from college in 1992. I learned COBOL, systems analysis, SQL, and database concepts. Yet, I had trouble finding work for 4-5 years, and worked in non-programing service jobs.
I had skill, but no opening. I tried to learn C++, but found it too abstract and rather difficult.
Then in 1995, I started learning HTML. A friend of mine started a company. I learned Cold Fusion. Since that time, I've become a solid developer, working as both a implemented (creating the markup) and coder. While others who have no programming experience whatsoever may do poor things with Cold Fusion, I was able to put my training to good use.
Just because something is easier doesn't make it any less "professional". I know people with more programming experience than myself who poorly document their code, use bad HTML, and don't think about proper design and source control. Clients ask my company for solutions. I provide them.
Languages and Applications should strive to be easier to use. That was the whole point of 4GLs and AIs and other developments. I'd rather spend 8 hours a day coding than 12.
Do I admire the people with more experience and skill. Yes. But does that mean that other people with talent are "wannabees". No. Our clients are happy with the work we've done. And in the end, that's all that matters.
Yes, but when you have to deal with a project on that level, that's when you take the ASP style approach. In other words, develop COM objects, CORBA objects, EJB, or Servlets. Or you can deal with Stored Procedures in Oracle or Cold Fusion. I've used several COM objects with Cold Fusion. I never said Cold Fusion was the tool for EVERYTHING, but I have built large scale sites, including one B2C (e-commerce) site. It's weaker towards object-oriented stuff, but that doesn't mean it's a "junk platform". They're going in this direction. Next version of Cold Fusion will combine CF with Java, so you can deal with the best of both worlds.
Well, like I said, documentation. If PHP didn't have such poor documentation, I'd probably start using it. As it is, while I've thought about learning it for Flywire, they would rather I learn ASP instead, since they don't feel it has "enough market support".
I've created custom tags in CFML, mostly using CFMODULE. They work.
As far as Perl goes--well, the learning perl book from O'reilly was a poor book to read, IMO. I did find one to learn for Win32 systems. But I don't think Perl is as good as ASP, PHP, Miva, or CF in terms of handling HTML--I think it's better for traditional programers who like dealing with that stuff.
Putting them into tags rather than functions has positives and negatives.
Actually, I think Allaire sees the future. A lot of scripting languages are moving towards being wrapped in XML, so many langugages might look like Cold Fusion.
I actually think that there are some flaws with Cold Fusion. The fact you can't create functions or objects can be a bit of a pain. But for what Cold Fusion sets out to do, both the built in functions and tag library seems to do the job. I only really use Custom Tags for recursive features, or to Black Box my stuff.
I actually find the Tag based code paradigm to be very good. It makes this easier to manipulate on the output level than it can be using a traditional stream based system.
The cool thing about such languages is that, if developed correctly, they can both be ideal for the web, AND be powerful enough to handle complex stuff.
I've used Cold Fusion for 3 years now, and have seen the product since 2.0. In my opinion, Cold Fusion is a lot better than PHP because of the way it works. The tag based metaphor focuses on the Output of Database information into HTML. You can just type in an SQL query and output it without having to deal with all that Command/Recordset and object crap. It's a great mix for people with moderate programing background who do not like the low level C++/Java stuff. You may have some criticism about Cold Fusion having bugs, but they make up for it in a lot more things. Cold Fusion has much easier concepts to learn and use, and while PHP may be powerful--the documentation just sucks. That is a problem. Every Open Source project I see is not geared towards training the language to people. I have been initially excited about PHP, Zope, and Perl, but I have found the documentation to be written for "the geek", while the books on Cold Fusion, both from Allaire and from Ben Forta, focus on training new people, as well as teaching advanced concepts. Only now with a few books on PHP on the market can I really start working with it. Many of us want to deal with stuff that's more or less as easy to use as a 4GL, or deal with complex configurations. I'd rather use CF's web based administrator and CFML on IIS and Windows NT than deal with PHP's INI files on a Linux box. Allaire may not follow the GPL or the Open Source Philosophy, but they are a lot better than the Microsoft path, and they are less insular.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed my point.
Allaire and Microsoft have comprehensive and easy to read documentation that excel at teaching people how to use their platform.
Let me compare Allaire docs for CF 4.5 to PHP 4.0. The Allaire books give comprehensive examples for each of their functions, in the context of the programing environment in their reference manual. For new releases, they have a well-written document that explain the new features they added, as well as bugs that have been reported, etc. They also supplement this with books teaching the basics.
I go to www.php.net. I want to find the new features in 4.0 on their site. Haven't been able to find it. The documentation for using COM objects just says ???. In my opinion, that's inexcusable. Plus, they don't really teach the concepts either.
Maybe you have a problem with the "encrypted string" functions. Having the source code to the product is not as important to me--since it's not likely something I can manipulate. It's having documentation that aims at the new user and is as complete as possible.
And the whole point I was saying is, if people developing software are not writing proper docs so other people can join the geek club, imagine how it is for the non-geek to move from OS to OS.
Dude, I have two college degrees. One was Associate of Arts in Computers and Information Systems, the other was a Bachelor of Arts in Management Information Systems.
I learned concepts such as statistics, accounting, programming theory, operational mathematics, systems analysis and design, and database theory and concepts.
Sadly, all they taught was COBOL and dBASE III. That was in the late 80's.
Why are you so elitist. What makes you better than me? I apply my skills and knowledge and make sure I create professional applications.
The fact of the matter is, people like you created these high-level languages so people like us would be able to do more computer work. That is the whole point of developing 4GLs, languages, and applications servers such as SQL, VBScript, JavaScript, PHP, and Cold Fusion.
We all shouldn't have to deal with compliers, multi-threading, and assembly code, now, should we?
One of the biggest problems, however, is the fact that learning a computer takes a lot more time and is done at an older age than learning to walk or potty training. Driving is also pretty much a neural activity.
In other words, nothing you stated requires a college course.
Computers have yet to become that good. I mean, a lot of people get confused with a VCR, much less a computer.
I have experienced this rather sad elitism myself, on a different level. I occupy what I call a "middle tier" of programmer--one who has a good working knowledge of high-level languages such as CFML, VBScript, and SQL, but has a lot of trouble dealing with lower level ones like C+ and Java.
Another big problem is that the higher up on the "elite knowledge food chain" you are, the harder it seems to be to communicate with those in need of training. I have found that the commercial products like Microsoft and Allaire have better documentation and teaching tools than anything from the open source movement.
Thus, I think there is merit in comments about usability and seeing the corporate view as a whole before undertaking a quest to remove Office from the workplace.
Ultimately, the goal of computers are to be used as tools for the masses to business, entertainment, education, and research. Our ultimate goal is for them to be used by as many people as possible. That involves making them easy to use, and not just reserved for a select few members of a cyber-intellegensia.
We should never forget that.
I'm only dabbling in the book, but you are correct. Even the first book you mentioned gave me more than the php.net docs.
But Shouldn't php.net have that type of documentation in the first place? Ideally, I shouldn't have to go to a third party for the stuff I need. Microsoft and Allaire have that type of documentation either in the box or via some well-written help files/on-line docs.
In my mind, until we get stuff of similar quality from a few of the open source projects, I'll take the commercial packages over the free or open source ones. After all--it's not my concern over which philosophy of software wins--it's what tool is easiest to use.
Okay, just to clarify.
When I get Allaire docs, I receive at least two good books. A reference manual, which has all the docs sorted by function/tag. And a training manual, which explains the basics.
Both, I believe, are important.
On the PHP web site, I reviewed the PHP code. However, it was not very good for casual reading--a case of a web page actually being harder than a book.
The acid test for me was to find out how to do the basics--which in my mind is to connect to a database. Coming from an application where all you need to do is write straightforward SQL within a tag with no other stuff, I found it hard to find information about how to access my database.
The ODBC section had functions, but since it was listed in manual format it was a bit difficult to see an example as you would write it.
Once I purchased a few PHP books, it became easy. But that's the key thing I am concerned about.
Allaire may cost me more money, but that training manual was well worth it, and it is easier to install and configure. Granted, PHP may actually be a powerful platform, but from what I've seen when I looked at the core provider--it focused more on functions and less on explaining things. What IS a sephamore, for instance?
That's where I have found certain areas lacking. Sometimes the reference manuals for languages are a little too "insider". And yes, there are other alternative sources out there--but it should fall upon the people who create the software, not a third party.
Documentation is important--not just the reference manual either. I am critical of an Allaire project called Spectra because the docs for that aren't as well written as the CF Docs. Sometimes, that makes all the difference.
It's rather elitist to say people who use VB or other "high level" languages are "professional programmers".
Just a little bit of background. I had a Bachelor of Arts in MIS. I graduated from college in 1992. I learned COBOL, systems analysis, SQL, and database concepts. Yet, I had trouble finding work for 4-5 years, and worked in non-programing service jobs.
I had skill, but no opening. I tried to learn C++, but found it too abstract and rather difficult.
Then in 1995, I started learning HTML. A friend of mine started a company. I learned Cold Fusion. Since that time, I've become a solid developer, working as both a implemented (creating the markup) and coder. While others who have no programming experience whatsoever may do poor things with Cold Fusion, I was able to put my training to good use.
Just because something is easier doesn't make it any less "professional". I know people with more programming experience than myself who poorly document their code, use bad HTML, and don't think about proper design and source control. Clients ask my company for solutions. I provide them.
Languages and Applications should strive to be easier to use. That was the whole point of 4GLs and AIs and other developments. I'd rather spend 8 hours a day coding than 12.
Do I admire the people with more experience and skill. Yes. But does that mean that other people with talent are "wannabees". No. Our clients are happy with the work we've done. And in the end, that's all that matters.
Yes, but when you have to deal with a project on that level, that's when you take the ASP style approach. In other words, develop COM objects, CORBA objects, EJB, or Servlets. Or you can deal with Stored Procedures in Oracle or Cold Fusion. I've used several COM objects with Cold Fusion. I never said Cold Fusion was the tool for EVERYTHING, but I have built large scale sites, including one B2C (e-commerce) site. It's weaker towards object-oriented stuff, but that doesn't mean it's a "junk platform". They're going in this direction. Next version of Cold Fusion will combine CF with Java, so you can deal with the best of both worlds.
Well, like I said, documentation. If PHP didn't have such poor documentation, I'd probably start using it. As it is, while I've thought about learning it for Flywire, they would rather I learn ASP instead, since they don't feel it has "enough market support".
I've created custom tags in CFML, mostly using CFMODULE. They work.
As far as Perl goes--well, the learning perl book from O'reilly was a poor book to read, IMO. I did find one to learn for Win32 systems. But I don't think Perl is as good as ASP, PHP, Miva, or CF in terms of handling HTML--I think it's better for traditional programers who like dealing with that stuff.
Well, it all depends.
Putting them into tags rather than functions has positives and negatives.
Actually, I think Allaire sees the future. A lot of scripting languages are moving towards being wrapped in XML, so many langugages might look like Cold Fusion.
I actually think that there are some flaws with Cold Fusion. The fact you can't create functions or objects can be a bit of a pain. But for what Cold Fusion sets out to do, both the built in functions and tag library seems to do the job. I only really use Custom Tags for recursive features, or to Black Box my stuff.
Aggreed.
I actually find the Tag based code paradigm to be very good. It makes this easier to manipulate on the output level than it can be using a traditional stream based system.
The cool thing about such languages is that, if developed correctly, they can both be ideal for the web, AND be powerful enough to handle complex stuff.
I've used Cold Fusion for 3 years now, and have seen the product since 2.0. In my opinion, Cold Fusion is a lot better than PHP because of the way it works. The tag based metaphor focuses on the Output of Database information into HTML. You can just type in an SQL query and output it without having to deal with all that Command/Recordset and object crap. It's a great mix for people with moderate programing background who do not like the low level C++/Java stuff. You may have some criticism about Cold Fusion having bugs, but they make up for it in a lot more things. Cold Fusion has much easier concepts to learn and use, and while PHP may be powerful--the documentation just sucks. That is a problem. Every Open Source project I see is not geared towards training the language to people. I have been initially excited about PHP, Zope, and Perl, but I have found the documentation to be written for "the geek", while the books on Cold Fusion, both from Allaire and from Ben Forta, focus on training new people, as well as teaching advanced concepts. Only now with a few books on PHP on the market can I really start working with it. Many of us want to deal with stuff that's more or less as easy to use as a 4GL, or deal with complex configurations. I'd rather use CF's web based administrator and CFML on IIS and Windows NT than deal with PHP's INI files on a Linux box. Allaire may not follow the GPL or the Open Source Philosophy, but they are a lot better than the Microsoft path, and they are less insular.
Go to ForumSpot.org