He's not a troll. He's a doofus gumby. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:51 pm Subject: RE: RE: RE: re: Mach-II
> hehe you people really don't see the troll? > > Matt != Fuseboxer; > Hal == FuseboxGhod; > Angus == Troll; > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:51 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: RE: RE: re: Mach-II > > > Sigh... > > Where did he say anywhere that those benefits are exclusive to > fusebox? > Point is, fusebox provides those benefits, not that they're the > exclusivedomain of fusebox... > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Calvin Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:52 pm > Subject: Re: RE: RE: re: Mach-II > > > I have to comment on this.... > > > > > > * it separates business logic from presentation logic, > making for > > > > more organized, efficent code > > > > Seperating presentation from logic is not limited to, nor > requires the > > Fusebox methodology. > > > > > > * 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 > > > > Common sets of rules and methods are not limited to, nor require > > the Fusebox > > methodology. > > > > > > * it modularizes and encapsulates code, making it easier to > reuse> > > and thus to maintain > > > > Encapsulation is not limited to, nor requires the Fusebox > methodology.> > > > > * it is self-documenting, containing a complete, inline XML > > > > standard for documenting your applications > > > > I wouldn't consider that feature of fusebox as self documenting, > > the inline > > XML is a clever way of organizing comments in code that allows > > access to > > them in ways other than opening source code. This is not limited > > to, nor > > requires the Fusebox methodology. > > > > > > * 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 > > > > This is the only semi-valid point. I think mach-ii has a lot > more > > promisethan Fusebox for object oriented development. Fusebox was > > an attempt to > > bring OO into a procedural framework. Successful? Certainly. > > Effective?Apparently. Overwhelmingly so? I don't think so. > > > > Any methodology is better than no methodology, and the right > > methodologydepends on the developer(s), the company, and/or the > > project. > > Fusebox is not inherently better than all other methodologies, > > with the > > caveat that it is more widely used than any other methodology > for > > CF, as far > > as the casual observer can see. > > > > - Calvin > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
