Oooh, it is funny. Probably not what Hal expected when he wrote: (Please, God, don't let this degenerate into yet another pro/con Fusebox debate...)
DRE (ps: comic troll??) > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:03 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Mach-II > > > 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=10595967 > 90/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
