This is the best thread in years, Now Angus do you know Stan Cox? I think he'll be at the FB conference in Vegas at the end of August, I'd buy both of you drinks, if I was going...
Cheers Greg -----Original Message----- From: Bryan F. Hogan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 30, 2003 2:27 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: RE: re: Mach-II Wholly crap, and I thought I lived under a rock. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus McFee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:08 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 [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
