Very true. However, Brian's statement really has nothing to do with what Fusebox offers. You decided to reply to it. I responded by merely saying that the official FB do not promote FB in such a manner, lest people get the wrong message from your post.
----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:13 pm Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > It may not be a big deal to you, but many people are on this list > because they care about the opinions of others. In fact, I believe > this > thread started with one developer asking for the opinions of > others. If > there weren't any opinions to debate in this thread then there > wouldn't > be any substance either. > > -Matt > > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 06:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> I am aware of what you are saying and I do NOT refute it with or > >> without Brian's comment. However, since my original email never > >> specified official Fusebox people I don't see the relevance. > > > > My point was that although FB users like to spout off, the > official FB > > people don't like to advocate FB in such a manner. I mean > really, who > > cares if Brian said something like that? It's just his opinion > about > > a product he uses. Big deal. > > > >> > >> -Matt > >> > >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>>> From your original messsage: > >>> > >>> "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'm saying that the official FB people do not do this. > >>> > >>> So, tell me again why Brian's comment somehow refutes this > >> statement.> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm > >>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > >>> > >>>> I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else > >>>> who > >>>> has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with > >>>> Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared the quote from this > >>>> thread > >>>> simply as an example in regards to the statement I made. > >>>> > >>>> -Matt > >>>> > >>>> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 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 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
