I don't see why comparing different kinds of framework is an issue if you limit your comparison to specifics that are shared by both. As I pointed out in my first email, there is no one framework that is best for all applications, so what the framework is or what it does is irrelevant to my point, which was in regards to sheer numbers. And since both frameworks have a following it is perfectly acceptable to compare that following.
-Matt On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Interesting that you are comparing a Java Framework to a ColdFusion > framework. Don't you think that is comparing Apples to Oranges? > > Within the Java World, Struts is by far the most adapted Framework of > its kind. Within the ColdFusion world (and I am not just referring to > CFMX here). Fusebox is the most adapted Framework of its kind. > > So don't compare Fusebox with Struts, compare it to BlackBox and > SmartObjects. Those are the items within the same realm, just as you > would compare Struts to Jade rather than comparing Struts to Zope. > >> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about >> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not >> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to >> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple >> of points. >> >> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I >> don't >> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu >> of >> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an >> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially >> where >> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong >> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the >> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be >> abandoned. >> >> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and >> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using >> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a >> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure >> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF >> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean >> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume >> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed >> to >> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be >> 180,000 Java developers using Struts. >> >> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and >> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the >> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy >> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for >> the >> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick, >>>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution... >>>> >>> >>> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a >>> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become >>> an >>> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write >>> sloppy >>> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a >>> processing >>> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in >>> external >>> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good >>> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious >>> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom >>> framework. >>> >>> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that >>> there >>> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many >>> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" >>> conversation >>> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make >>> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and >>> application processes to be a boon. >>> >>> Erik Yowell >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://www.shortfusemedia.com >>> >>> >>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
