Ill be glad to go register who-gives-a-shit.com and setup a mailing list so you guys can continue your interesting debate about... wait... what was it about again? Shut up already...
..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com -----Original Message----- From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:28 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Framework suggestions Don't want dumb respones, then don't post dumb comments. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 July 2006 13:48 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Framework suggestions That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! Maybe I'll go post on the PGA tour players forum as to how they should view club selection in a US Open final round. I have lots of ideas about that, but my opinion would certainly be irrelevant since I've never actually been in the position. It would actually be alot quicker for me to just fire off a few emails rather than put in the work and learn how to play golf. If anyone REALLY wants an educated opinion on the frameworks please listen to someone who intimately understands the frameworks in question like Barney, or Sean. They both post very intelligent opinions on the matter and understand it completely. Greg On 7/3/06, Snake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greg, > > All I can suggest is that you get a stopwatch out and time how long it > takes to send a few emails, then time how long it takes to learn and > implement and test say Mach-II or FB5 and compare the difference. > You will then have answered your own question. > > HTH > > Snake > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 July 2006 20:05 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Framework suggestions > > But you have time to write all these uneducated opinions? > > On 7/3/06, Snake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Unfortunately I have a full-time job, so I don't have the luxury of > > just taking time off at a whim to play with new frameworks. > > Things like this have to wait until I have some free time. > > > > snake > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 03 July 2006 13:55 > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Framework suggestions > > > > Stop "imagining" and actually try it. > > > > On 7/3/06, Snake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I would imagine this is a pain to debug, because any errors will > > > be in the compiled pages (which u can't view I presume if they are > > > compiled to > > > memory) > > > not in the code you actually wrote. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nathan Strutz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 03 July 2006 04:05 > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: Re: Framework suggestions > > > > > > XML is certainly not easier for CF developers to use, but it does > > > accomplish a few important things. > > > > > > First, it's not language specific. This is the weakest point > > > because not many people care whether or not they can move their > > > controller layer between different languages, but it sounds nice. > > > > > > Second, it forces you to watch how much logic you put into your > > > circuits & fuses. A lot of people were shortcutting and taking > > > advantage of the circuits, putting code like cfqueries in there, > > > but the limited XML syntax forces you to stand back and think > > > about your > > application. > > > > > > Third, it's easier to parse. I mentioned yesterday in this thread > > > that the XML is parsed into plain cfml files, but it's not just a > > > translation of cfif, cfinclude, cfset, etc. There are a few > > > compiler directives, specifically the "do" action, which compiles > > > and includes inline the contents of another fuseaction. This is > > > what gives a lot of the performance benifits over FB 3. Instead of > > > cfmodule or cfinclude, the code is on the same parsed file. > > > > > > So the syntax isn't simpler or easier, but the outcome is probably > > > worth it. > > > > > > -nathan strutz > > > http://www.dopefly.com/ > > > > > > > > > On 7/2/06, Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>The FB5 core is basically a > > > > >>compiler that transforms the XML into vanilla CFML. > > > > > > > > OK, but what's the big idea? > > > > Is XML any simpler or easier to use than CFML? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > _______________________________________ > > > > REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; > > > > See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm > > > > (Please send any spam to this address: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:245398 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=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54