Great way to end my Wednesday... Thanks Angus, wherever you are! Mark
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:27 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Mach-II Does Hal Helms use Fusebox? Judge for yourself :) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972078630/qid=1059596790/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-5476614-2858465 - Jim Angus McFee wrote: >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 [mailto:[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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
