It being late, and on my way to bed... (why I'm checking my email I don't know)...
Simon, as an instructor: 1) what practices do you think fusebox encourages in coders? 2) what is the basic structure of one of your applications? 3) how is this structure easily explained to a person with no experience of your application structure? I ask these questions purely on the basis of interest. I have used FB in the past, but have no real desire to go beyond FB3, as it appears FB seems to have turned into an American money-making fest for a certain few (here, I duck just to make sure nothing hits me). On the Fusebox front Ashley, it's worth learning or at least understanding as it helps you code in a very procedural way. The problem comes when you don't reuse code properly and don't comment properly (although this is a problem with ALL code), or write applications correctly. This last bit, unfortunately, you can only learn from either writing code and learning from mistakes, OR from asking people (as you have done) what is good/bad/ugly about writing code. As with every structure/methodology/application if you don't understand WHY it does it a certain way, you can be sure it'll bite you in the end. Learn why FB was written that way, what MVC is all about, and why both have their place as good methodologies, but also learn that neither are perfect for every situation. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 August 2003 19:11 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Fusebox Goodies > > > Stephen, > All due respect to you as well, but as an instructor, I've > seen SO MANY students who had used fusebox for months, who > didn't understand the first thing about how to properly build > an application from scratch - not the first thing. All they > understood were fuseactions and some of the basics of CFML. > The framework does not encourage developers to learn, nor > does it reinforce, development best practices. I've also > been called on-site as a consultant to troubleshoot and "fix" > performance issues on many sites that were built with > fusebox. I'm not implying that fusebox was the reason there > were problems with the site, but I can tell you that when I > looked at the code for the site and the way fusebox was > handling some things under the hood, I could have achieved > the same functionality in a much more optimal manner. That's > the point of fusebox: not just to reinforce consistency and > speed development by re-using pre-written code, but also to > make it easier to achieve results. Some of the things that > the framework does to achieve this simplicity and > consistency, are not really recommended practices. This has > been my personal experience with fusebox. > > ~Simon > > Simon Horwith > CTO, Etrilogy Ltd. > Member of Team Macromedia > Macromedia Certified Instructor > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer > Certified Flash MX Developer > CFDJList - List Administrator > http://www.how2cf.com/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 August 2003 17:51 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] Fusebox Goodies > > > Simon > > > I'm not a fusebox fan - never have been. This is > primarilly because > > I've found that it ties your hands as well as discouraging you from > > learning > the > > language properly. Most applications can be built better > if you know > > how > to > > build an app. from scratch. > > > > With great respect.... Thats a load of bollox. > > I'm no fan of FB3 and have yet to look at Mach12 or whatever > FB4 is being called. (I dislike the over use of files to > determine OS etc.etc.etc. and the overly complex switching > that creates spaghetti if your not a conscientious developer > blah blah blah...) > > However, in no way shape or form does it prevent you from > learning coldfusion properly. That is an element of the > programmer. No method for structuring applications is going > to discourage a developer from learning the language. All FB > (any version) does is provide a hub/spoke structure within > which you right your application and a few functions that can > assist in ease of development. It can't help you learn to > write good code nor does it prevent you from writing good code. > > In terms of tieing your hands; never had any issue with > finding FB restricting how I writing a well structured > application. Frankly, developers who aren't using MVC (now > that we have a real approximation to an OO language) or a > hub/spoke method (procedural) should all be taken out and > shot. These are the developers who just litter files with > queries,displays, actions with no defined flow through the > application and create applications that cannot be maintained. > > In no way does or has FB ever attempted to write an > application for a developer, so your statement that an > application can generally be written better from scratch has > no relevance to the dicussion. > > I'm not happy about all the "political" and "commercial" BS > that FB has become since FB3, but these kind of statements > are pure ignorance of what FuseBox is. Sorry Simon. > > Regards > > Stephen > > > > -- > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
