heh heh. ----- Original Message ----- From: Angus McFee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:08 pm Subject: RE: RE: re: Mach-II
> Hal - > > I've heard from plenty of people looking for a way to beat up on > Fusebox, but usually they have nothing to say when it comes to > building a better framework. This is the first time in a long time > anyone has suggested an alternative approach, and I really don't > see how any of this benefits developers. This mach-ii stuff looks > like just another petty attack on Fusebox. > > It's pretty clear we see things differently when it comes to > building Web applications. I don't know you, but I can tell you > are a pretty intelligent person, so you probably have some good > reasons for why you don't like or hate fusebox. > > What I have to ask you is: do you use fusebox? Becuase there are > plenty of people who are ready to attack it anytime and don't even > know ColdFusion, much less what a framework is. You will probably > never be convinced about the benefits of fusebox, all I can do is > disagree with you, and point out all the great things fusebox does > for developers: > > * it separates business logic from presentation logic, making for > more organized, efficent code > * it gives developers a common set of rules and methods to work > from, so that everyone can understand what the other people are > doing on a project regardless of the size of a team > * it modularizes and encapsulates code, making it easier to reuse > and thus to maintain > * it is self-documenting, containing a complete, inline XML > standard for documenting your applications > * most importantly, there are thousands and thousands of fusebox > developers out there, and more and more shops are choosing to use > it every day. it is close to becoming a de-facto standard, which I > doubt your mach-ii 'framework' will ever be able to match > > Angus McFee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Helms [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:16 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: RE: re: Mach-II > > You're right, Dave. We're not looking to be able to incorporate > Fusebox 3 (or 4) with Mach-II. We think that Fusebox is a great > framework for procedural programmers. (Please, God, don't let this > degenerate into yet another pro/con Fusebox debate...) > Mach-II, though, is meant to be a pure OO framework. Fusebox and > Mach-II have in common some good software engineering principles, > but are very different things. I'm really referring to (a) > backwards compatibility and (b) cross-language compatibility. > Hal Helms > "Java for CF Programmers" class > in Las Vegas, August 18-22 > www.halhelms.com > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
