Matt's here, party's over. LOL ;)
-----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
