The only thing I would add is that "standards" are empowering, and they
are, by their nature limiting [of creativity].
But, having used a standard [fusebox] you have realized beneits, and
you are in a advantageous position to migrate to its [r]evolutionary
replacement.
Stated more explicitly, [the standards] ASCII, BASIC, ForTran and CoBOL
(and the 8080 CPU) have created he shoulders upon which we stand today
(with mini-revolutions from NCR, ALWAC, Xerox, Amiga and Apple).
Exploit a standard for what it is -- but do not be mesmerized by it!
Dick
On Sep 4, 2004, at 8:28 PM, Steven Brownlee wrote:
> Andrew:
>
>
> It is better to use {insert methodology here} because of the
> standards,
> protocols and consistency that it provides to all of the developers
> of your
> application. {insert methodology here} is NOT inherently better than
> a
> system that you come up with on your own, it simply saves you time in
> two
> areas. First, you don't have to waste huge amounts of time designing
> and
> documenting your own application coding practices. Secondly, using
> {insert
> methodology here} can drastically reduce the time and money spent
> training a
> new memeber of the development team. Assuming that the new developer
> knows
> {insert methodology here}, of course. Most any deeply experienced
> architect
> - not just a developer - will tell you that any methodology is better
> than
> having none. Developers are the ones that will defend their choice
> with
> religious zeal. As a consultant on many projects using a vast array
> of
> coding languages, I strongly assert that a company that adheres even
> to the
> most simple of standards is way ahead of the game.
>
>
> My personal favorites are:
> Mach II - http://www.mach-ii.com/
> cfObjects - https://sourceforge.net/projects/cfobjects/
> Fusebox - http://www.fusebox.org/
>
> _____
>
> From: Andrew Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:43 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Fusebox
>
> Hi Everyone.
>
> We are just about to start a major new project, well actually a
> complete upgrade from the ground up of an old project, but I have been
> looking at doing it in a much more structured way and I wanted some
> opinion about using Fusebox. We have never used it before, but we are
> all highly experienced CF programmers (5+ years). What I'm really
> looking for is some explaining of why it is better to use the Fusebox
> method than just straight forward CF.
>
> Also, can anyone point me in the direction of a good online
> introduction to Fusebox as there doesn't seem to be much on the
> Fusebox website.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew.
> _____
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
