John, fabulous email, thanks. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Original Message ----------------------- > Bastardized fusebox is simply that -- bastardized fusebox. It's sort of > saying the application is "sort of MVC" or that the database is "sort of > backed up" -- it is or it isn't. well that's like CFC being "sort of" OO, now isn't it? :) > thus there's no way to maintain and extend a single core. > Instead, each developer does their own thing. > actually in Fusebox 4 you will be able to extend the core quite easily using "plugins". And you will also pick your choice of cores so that the end results in CF or PHP or ASP etc. > That said, I'll reemphasize that it's easier to big a decent methodology of > the shelf and get the project done instead of trying to build your own. FB3 > is a great contribution to CF for that reason alone. > One of the key points to Fusebox that was overlooked in the last few days -- and I was surprised at this since Andrew was a great example of the point -- is that Fusebox doesn't try to be "better" than some framework that an individual developer like him could do. It's neither better nor worse, just an agreed upon way of doing things. In fact, for his projects his own framework is likely better since he's so familiar with it (which also explains why there isn't a pressing need for him to learn Fusebox). But the missed point is that his skillset, as tied to his own framework, is highly limiting his opportunities to work with other people, because now they have a learning curve of learning "his" framework, or he theirs. Now, again, if you run your own shop and have a handful of people that work for you, then you might not need this at all. Perfect! If that is all you want to do, then you're absolutely correct that that is all you need. Or if you're a larger shop that has a vested interest in a "secret" methodology -- much like the people of Florence at one time gave Michaelangelo's David a FigLeaf, which only serves to create interest in what is covered up-- then any open publically known framework, Fusebox or otherwise, has to be spun a certain way since the heart of the business centers on one's "secret sauce". Being the owner of several patented processes, I can confirm that is just as legitimate a business concern as any other. But in much larger organizations -- some recent "convertees" to Fusebox among our own clients include Dell Computers, UPS, the Perth Mint, and the the Canadian government's Natural Resources division -- the payoff of Fusebox is tremendous -- the organization gets a known standard framework (notice I'm not saying a known "standard", but a known "standard framework"). When they hire someone who knows Fusebox then they know they are getting someone who does pretty darn close to what they already do -- so that new hire will be able to get up to speed much quicker. And for developers, learning Fusebox is a highly portable investment -- not only can they use it for their "own" projects but they can work on other outside projects without learning something totally new nor have to deliver projects done in a 'proprietary' framework that the client has no idea how to maintain and they can leverage the time they've spent investing in Fusebox for multiple purposes. Not a bad idea during a recession. Finally to the end-customer, Fusebox also has advantages: they aren't tied to maintaining their code only with the people who wrote it. They spend less money doing the maintenance because it's based on some publically known framework. They spend less money getting projects developed because they can compare bids as apples-to-apples when it's based on a common framework especially when combined with Persuasive Architecture. The idea is less that of a religion -- despite the sometimes over-zelaous claims of some Fusebox adherents that it will cure everything including the common cold -- and more of an "agreement to agree", a "lingua franca" if you will. You know, English is not the perfect language -- it spells poorly relative to its pronounciation (linguists call that "poor phonography" which sounds too close to "see teens get it on with farm animals" to ever be used in the mainstream, ha ha). On the other hand, Hungarian, which has good phonography, is a very nice language and if I were a native Hungarian speaker I'd probably love to speak it with my parents and with friends. Yet, if I wanted to get along in the world, esp today's world of business and technology, I would be crazy not to learn English. Does that make English "better"? Depends on the metric. Do people have their own ways to speaking English? Yes, just ask any Australian or fan of "The Sopranos." Is there any quasi-central body for promoting a "standard English" . Kinda -- but in the end people pretty much talk any way they like. So it is with Fusebox. Just like with English, it can only help you to learn it, since it becomes just one more skill in your arsenal. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
