That's Brian's own opinion. He is not a member of the Fusebox team. On Fusebox.org's web page:
"Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building web-based applications. Currently used by well over 17762 people from around the world, Fusebox attempts to reduce the 70% software failure rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework and methodology for writing web applications and managing web development projects." Nothing special there. Certainly doesn't sound like they're tooting their own horn. ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > How about the following quote from this thread for example. > > "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's > > personal > best guess at something, or some superior approach that conspicuously > manages to never actually be revealed) it is the best thing I've > found > so > far. And about 17,000 other people agree. " > > -Matt > > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say > that > > because there are so many X people using FB, so should you. > Rather, > > it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah, > people > > are using it. Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other > framework, > > but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most > popular item > > in it's class. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm > > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > >> See my response to another email along similar lines. However, I'd > >> to > >> respond to your email a little differently. > >> > >> Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10 > >> times as > >> many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF > >> over > >> Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think most > >> of > >> us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard > >> the > >> number of Java developers as irrelevant. > >> > >> Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to > >> Fusebox > >> (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use > >> Fusebox > >> over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as > >> realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever > >> someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using > >> it > >> the obvious question remains, why not use something with a greater > >> > >> following? > >> > >> I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this > >> out > >> to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you > >> should > >> too" line is. > >> > >> -Matt > >> > >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote: > >> > >>> Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the > >> numbers> using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing > >> Appes to > >>> Oranges? It > >>> has no meaning. Does this mean that because there are more Java > >>> Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java?? > >>> > >>> Struts is the most popular framework for Java. It doesn't mean > >> that > >>> Struts > >>> can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be > >> used in > >>> ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but > >> not > >>> everyone > >>> is doing cross Java/CFMX development. > >>> > >>> Instead compare Apples to Apples. Compare Struts to something > >> like > >>> JADE > >>> (IBM) or Barracuda. Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or > >>> SmartObjects. > >>> > >>> Those are true comparisons I would like to see. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM > >>> To: CF-Talk > >>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > >>> > >>> > >>> 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
