http://www.beynon.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.show&mode=cat&catid=8C3B9E31-802D-00D5-73ADB5D764E60C74
i have started a series of LearnFB articles starting from the most
basic, only up to lesson3 at the moment - more will follow shortly,
and i'll be publishing updated fusebox4.1 version when it's released,
and when i'm back from the conference in 2 weeks!!! :)
jb.
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:36:00 -0700, Dick Applebaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is very good advice.
>
> 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]
