Calvin Ward said: >ColdFusion seems to shield the developer from the more >arcane phraseology and syntax used by lower level languages, and Fusebox >seems to introduce the arcane right back on top of it...
Calvin, in one sentence you articulated what I was unable to in, what... 100 across this thread? Nail on the head. I don't think CF needs to be complex to be understandable by coders other than the original one. CF is simple to follow and this is a benefit to be preserved, not thrown away in the interest of standardization, regardless of the fact it does have some inarguable benefits, the KISS principle should rule. Do I have a better solution? No, but this lack doesn't invalidate the right to make the observation, as some have suggested. If everyone just read Sean Corfield's code guidelines and took them to heart that'd be most of the battle won right there. -------------------------------------------- Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com -------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:39 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox Exactly so... Just an odd opinion. ColdFusion seems to shield the developer from the more arcane phraseology and syntax used by lower level languages, and Fusebox seems to introduce the arcane right back on top of it... - Calvin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael T. Tangorre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:38 PM Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > X(exit) F(fuse) A(actions) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Calvin Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:37 PM > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > > XFA? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mosh Teitelbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:39 AM > > Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox > > > > <snip> > > > > > Yes, but the earlier comments I was responding to were suggesting that > > > Fusebox allows individual developers to know Fusebox but not have to > know > > > the specific details of the current FB implementation. For example, the > > > developer can know to read the FuseDoc at the top of the file and can > know > > > to plugin <FORM ACTION="#someXFA#"> but not have to know that sometimes > > this > > > form targets "foo.add" and other times targets "foo.edit". As an > example > > of > > > why this is problematic, if the developer doesn't know about both > targets, > > > he can't know to test his code against both targets. It also makes it > > more > > > difficult to debug any problem that crop up. Adding some code to fix > one > > > problem may unknowingly cause another problem when going to a different > > > target. > > > > <snip> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
