On 1/12/06, Tim Van Der Hulst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Had a bit of a steep learning curve and also seemed a bit verbose to write. > Dunno, I only read the docs and followed the mailing lists. There seemed to > be quite a few newbies who stumbled with it so I decided it was one framework > I didn't want to invest my time in. I wonder if it's still used much or > whether most folks opted to move to ModelGlue.
Um, yeah, there's still a lot of folks using Mach-II. :-) It isn't a matter of "moving on" from one thing to another; if one framework fits the way you think better, then by all means use it. The sense of the steepness of the learning curve is completely individual. What makes sense right away to one person might take some effort on the part of another person in order to understand it. Conceptually (in my mind anyway) Mach-II and Model-Glue are really quite similar, so I actually would be very curious to hear why some folks thing MG is simpler to pick up than M2. Is it a documentation issue? Sample application availability issue? Or is there something people see in the framework itself that actually does create a higher barrier of entry? I'm asking because I hear this comment every so often and I'd be curious to hear why specifically some people find MG easier to grasp than M2. Not trying to start a big hairy debate here; I'm honestly interested in what people see as the differences from a learning standpoint. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Woodward [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mattwoodward.com ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
