Sorry useful, I meant useful :-) -----Original Message----- From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 July 2006 23:56 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Framework suggestions
Thanks guys for saving me several hours of having to go through FB5 myself to find this out. At least there are some people on here that take the time to write useless responses rather than just being rude. snake -----Original Message----- From: David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 July 2006 22:04 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Framework suggestions Also, one of the main benefits of the XML is that the program structure and flow is described there, and not among the rest of the CF code. This enables tools like Fusebuilder, fuseminder, etc. that can document and modify the flow+structure of the application programmatically. On 7/3/06, Nathan Strutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/3/06, Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>Second, [...] the limited XML syntax > > forces you to stand back and think about your application. > > > > OK, so it's better because it's limited? > > > > Yeah. Believe it or not. > It makes sure your application controller isn't doing anything but > than controlling your application. Still, there are ways to get around > it (hey, we're all hackers here), but it takes more work. > > > >>Third, it's easier to parse. > > > > Oh noooo, please, not again with this old BS! > > This was the main point with people claiming advanges of Pascal: > > it's easier to compile! > > But please, c'mon, since when the purpose of a language is to be > > parsed or compiled? > > A language exists to make applications easier to develop for > > developers, period! > > Whether it is formal or not, easier or more difficult for the > > programer to write a parser, is completely insignificant. > > > > That's fine, call it how you see it. I see it as an open source > community project made by seasoned CF developers. They're not trying > to recreate the CF parsing engine or the JDK (which would then be > incompatible with > BlueDragon) in an application framework. They're just trying to > automate some code gen techniques and create a framework for > strucuring your applications. XML is "in" and quickly & easily > accomplishes a lot of the goals for the framework. It sounds like an > easy choice for me, and the same arguments could be made for M2 and > MG. > > Anyways, all to say this: The XML syntax isn't necessarily easier or > better than CFML, but for what this, or other XML-based frameworks do > for you, the extra brain space is worth using these frameworks. > > > > > OK, it may be less worse the FB3, but the question is "is it any > > better than plain vanillia CF?" > > > The truth is, it is trying to be better than FB3, which is of course > an improvement on FB 2 & 1. I've said it before: Everywhere I've gone > to work on pre-built code has some application running a FB1/2 style > process (the main page with a big cfswitch, including files). It's > everywhere, and this is an improvement on it. > > > -nathan strutz > http://www.dopefly.com/ > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:245348 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
