While I may not always agree with Hal, I'd never accuse him of missing the point... especially when it comes to FuseBox.
In fact one of my complaints is that Hal's "Foundations" column in ColdFusion Developer's Journal is (or was) often heavily FuseBox oriented (I would have rather seen a more general column introducing broader concepts). Hal is (perhaps arguably) one of the three or four people most responsible for the success of Fusebox. The world has room for multiple frameworks. Fusebox has great benefits and so will Mach-II. Both will have weaknesses as well and so both can be applicable in different situations. Jim Davis > -----Original Message----- > From: Angus McFee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:09 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: RE: re: Mach-II > > Matt - > > Good to hear from a fellow fuseboxer! > > No, this isn't a joke, this guy clearly has a problem with what fusebox > has become and has made this other framework that clearly doesn't do most > of what Fusebox is capable of. I don' t think him having helped make > fusebox or having been in a few books makes a huge difference. My dog has > been in a few books, that doesn't mean he don't hate cats. > > But this really sounds like he is dissing fusebox. "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." > > These things aren't new and they don't do something you can't do with > fusebox already. Fusebox already works in ColdFusion, PHP, ASP, JSP and > Perl, and I have even seen a TCL port for the framework. In PHP, you can > do all the object oriented programming you want, so I don't see why there > would be a need for this "mach-ii" except to take away from fusebox. > > This guy is just one of the ones who is never going to get what it is all > about. > > Angus McFee > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:37 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Mach-II > > This is a joke right? > -Matt > On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 04:08 PM, 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 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
