m all of a sudden I'm hungry for spaghetti bolognese
what were we talking about again? :P
>While you can always write spaghetti code in a procedural language,
>object-oriented languages used poorly can add meatballs to your spaghetti.
>- Andrew Hunt, David Thomas
>
>:-)))
>
>-
> Of course, if you put it that way, it is better.
> The fact is actually that no technology will enable a bad programmer to
write good code.
> The fact is also that spaghetti FuseBox and spaghetti OO is worse than
anything, and YES,
> spaghetti Fusebox and spaghetti code under any framework exists
> Which language do you think is ideal for OO web programming?
I would go with Java or Python, I think.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
~|
Special thanks to th
I've worked on precisely zero web apps that didn't have to have functionality
added to it.
I've worked on precisely zero web apps that didn't have to have maintenance
done to it.
This is over the course of 7 years.
Everything a developer writes can benefit from OO. Does it make apps more
mai
Brian Kotek wrote:
>If you're serious I'm sure numerous people would be interested in looking at
>it!
>
Unfortunately, it removes much of the "proper" restrictions in Mach-II
(like peeking into the eventQueue, prepeding events, extending the
framework iteself) that create the uniformity of the
If you're serious I'm sure numerous people would be interested in looking at it!
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:05:40 -0500, Alex Sherwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Damien McKenna wrote:
>
> >Care to provide links for some of those, namely JSF-CF, MVC-QT and
> >MX-XCEL? I couldn't find anything on G
That is so hilarious and I'm being serious not sarcastic at all.
Great input as always Alex.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:46 -0500, Alex Sherwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look, this is all very simple. The best frameworks/methodologies ranked
> in order are:
>
> 1) Mach-II
> 2) JSF-CF (Java
Damien McKenna wrote:
>Care to provide links for some of those, namely JSF-CF, MVC-QT and
>MX-XCEL? I couldn't find anything on Google for them. Thanks.
>
>
>
Please forgive me. I couldn't resist throwing a bunch of made up
frameworks into the mix to fan the flames. The names are pretty good,
Care to provide links for some of those, namely JSF-CF, MVC-QT and
MX-XCEL? I couldn't find anything on Google for them. Thanks.
--
Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?" - F
Look, this is all very simple. The best frameworks/methodologies ranked
in order are:
1) Mach-II
2) JSF-CF (Java Server Faces for CF)
3) CFOBJECKTS
4) FuseBox 4
5) FuseBox 3
6) MVC-QT (The most RAD environment for making MVC apps)
The new MX-XCEL framework and wireframing system should be out i
>> Other than for code re-use, I still don't quite understand why OO is being
forced onto a concept that is inherently procedural.
Forced is a strong word, but probably accurate given the current environment
in development today. As people have said, there are situations where it is
useful and ot
Claude Schneegans wrote:
>>>It is a big deal if it made your job easier and your project more successful.
>>>
>>>
>
>My point is that it DOES NOT make my job easy.
>Apparently, at least for the product I'm thinking of, it made easier for the
>programmers to make an inefficient system that r
Claude,
My question was worded that way due to the way his statement was
worded. I was simply curious what he felt was, I was not hinting
towards anything with the question just being curious since his
statement to me implied that he thought there was a general better
solution. I always find Dav
I'm not sure how many times it must be stated in this thread that
using a framework will not prevent a bad developer from writing bad
code any more than using an OO language like Java can prevent bad
code. If this application that you worked on made an inefficient
system that duplicates queries the
>>Don't you mean a web page.. when.. someone talks to me about a web
application.. i'm more thinking in terms of web services..
There is no difference, a Web application is nothing but a set of Web pages
working on some set of data.
>>Hmm.. how about RemoteScripting (JSRS), Flash..
These is on
>>It is a big deal if it made your job easier and your project more successful.
My point is that it DOES NOT make my job easy.
Apparently, at least for the product I'm thinking of, it made easier for the
programmers to make an inefficient system that repeats 5 times the same query
in the same pa
Read ... that's not the point which is Simon trying to make.
He notices, the advantages of using a framework (organizing files,
separating types of files, reusing your code) measure up against the
disadvantages of not using a framework.
For most CF developers frameworks like Mach II and FuseBox
> Exact, there is nothing more procedural than a Web application:
Don't you mean a web page.. when.. someone talks to me about a web
application.. i'm more thinking in terms of web services..
> There is ONE request to a server for a page from a user, and ONE answer from
> the server to the user
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:34:16 -0500, Claude Schneegans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>That may be your opinion,
>
> No, it's my experience.
I'm assuming that your opinion is based on experience.
> >>but the stark reality is that object-orientation has taken over the vast
> >>majority of the pro
>>Which language do you think is ideal for OO web programming?
Now this is a bad question.
One should ask "Which language is ideal to do what I have to do".
OO programming is a tool, not a goal, if it is the best tool, go OO, if
something else is better,
simpler or whatever, for Christ sake, use
>>"object-oriented methodology" doesn't guarantee you won't have obtuse and
unmaintainable code.
Absolutely. The problem is that many "programmers" wont learn programming, then
just learn how
to use a "framework" and they beleive they know programming, just because they
"use a framework"
the res
>>much easier that they were developed using a simple framework like
Fusebox than if it had been a random-bunch-of-files.
Why "a random-bunch-of-files"? An application is not just "a
random-bunch-of-files" if it is not FB ;-)
Not FB does not mean anarchy.
--
_
>>solid, well-designed
object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code.
Of course, if you put it that way, it is better.
The fact is actually that no technology will enable a bad programmer to write
good code.
The fact is also that spaghetti FuseBox and spaghetti OO is worse than
any
>>That may be your opinion,
No, it's my experience.
>>but the stark reality is that object-orientation has taken over the vast
>>majority of the programming world.
This is the problem: people do OO because it is a la mode, not because it is
useful.
Using a framework IS good WHEN it is useful.
Which language do you think is ideal for OO web programming?
--
Aaron Rouse
http://www.happyhacker.com/
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:23:13 -0500, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid,
> > well-designed object oriented methodology wil
I haven't written a simple, small web app in about 5 years. I'd love to go
back to a simple, page based framework, but fact is, I'd being myself, my
fellow programmers and my clients a disservice by doing that.
I use Fusebox and MachII because I don't want to write my own framework. I
certain
> Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid,
> well-designed object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti
> code.
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is an absurd
comparison. "Spaghetti code" will always be beaten by anything else - it
doesn't ha
ndant, but with the extras that it gives you that CFCs
don't support yet, I still think it's worth using.
My 2 cents.
-Original Message-
From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
A
And you have hit upon the true issue: When it comes to CF, almost 100% of the
maintanance problems with an app are a result of the people that wrote it.
This is actually the case with many modern languages (I'll exempt C++ - it's a
major knives and daggers language). Blaming a framework is ra
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:57:45 -0800, Steve Brownlee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good, solid, well-designed
> object oriented methodology will always beat spaghetti code. FuseBox is a
> methodology, but it is not OO. Let's be clear on that point.
Well, we're not necessarily going to convert all our applications.
I am learning the methodology, so that we have consistency in our apps and a
best practices in place. I would like to use the methodology on all future
apps.
I may convert one or two to get a better handle on the methodology. B
> I recently had to add some features in a FB application, it
> was including more than 100 files and it took me hours to
> find the one I had to modify to do the job.
I took over several FB3 apps and I must say that it has made my life
much easier that they were developed using a simple framewo
I'd call Fusebox a framework more than a methodology (FLiP is the
methodology commonly used to support Fusebox projects). And while the
framework code itself is not OO (where Mach-II is), you can easily
build CFC-based object models that fully follow OO principles and
leverage them in a Fusebox app
Idiots can make anything hard to change though. We have our own
framework here, I hate dealing with it but I also understand the
reasonings behind having it. There have been times when I had to go
in and resolve something someone else was attempting to do and it took
me hours or even days to get
That may be your opinion, but the stark reality is that
object-orientation has taken over the vast majority of the programming
world. In my opinion, not embracing this change is basically career
suicide.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:49:30 -0500, Claude Schneegans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exact, and
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:50 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
>>that you can still develop CF Apps
in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize proper OO
techniques... and that perform better, as well.
Exact, and I would eve
I've had to add features to a "regular" CF app that took me DAYS, because the
idiots that made it couldn't code to save their lives.
This is how a good willing concept is finally having the oposite result it is
intended to.
> >>that you can still develop CF Apps
> in a timely menner without the
>>that you can still develop CF Apps
in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize
proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well.
Exact, and I would even add "that utilises NO OO technique, and it will even be
faster to develop,
and perform even better.
I recentl
I don't find MachII in the least bit "un"-performant.
I also have a very large FB4 that runs hunky dory as well.
I'd love to see some proof of your claims.
>I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps
>in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utiliz
But I though FuseBox 4 and FuseDoc files were supposed to make your apps
faster, particularly because you put your queries in a file that ends
with ".QRY".
Not to mention putting your HTML in ".DSP" files..this will really
start to heat up the compartmentalization factor in your application
Are you converting them to just learn the methodology so that you can
apply it to new applications or for some other reason? Just curious
as to why the need to convert already running applications.
--
Aaron Rouse
http://www.happyhacker.com/
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:22:15 -0400, Ali Awan <[EMAIL
Sorry for the duplicate post...the listserver scolded me for not
trimming previous replies so I thought the message hadn't gone
through.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:15:55 -0500, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Naturally, as with any programming decision there is a tradeoff. In my
> experience
Naturally, as with any programming decision there is a tradeoff. In my
experience, unless you have a very specific performance requirement,
the benefits of a framework in terms of maintainability,
standardization, and team development outweigh the very small
performance hit.
That said, of course S
Simon,
Thanks for your input.
I do believe you are right. However, the company I work for is looking to
adopt a widely used methodology, so that we can implement some sort of best
practices and maintain consistency amongst our developers and applications.
Since I was familiar with Fusebox that
I agree
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:03 +, Simon Horwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps
> in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize
> proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't
Naturally, as with any programming decision there is a tradeoff. In my
experience, unless you have a very specific performance requirement,
the benefits of a framework in terms of maintainability,
standardization, and team development outweigh the very small
performance hit.
That said, of course S
I only feel it's my duty to mention that you can still develop CF Apps
in a timely menner without the use of FB or MACH II that do utilize
proper OO techniques... and that perform better, as well. I don't want
to open a can of worms here, but thought I'd point it out.
~Simon
Simon Horwith
Mem
Did you check out the OnTap framework?
http://www.fusiontap.com/docs/index.cfm
Ali Awan wrote:
>Thanks Sean,
>And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread.
>
>I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to
>that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am
It might help to note that many of the same principles of OO
development with CFCs can be applied using Fusebox 4 as well as
Mach-II. People are starting to build fully abstracted object models
with CFCs. When they're built correctly, you can take that object
model and use it with Mach-II or Fusebo
Thanks Sean,
And thanks to everyone else that has posted in this thread.
I really like Fusebox 4, and have been able to start converting my apps to
that. Now that I have the hang of that, I am able to at least read the Mach-II
code and understand it a little better.
Thanks for all the links an
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:43 -0400, Ali Awan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to
> define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I
> write and work on.
Perhaps the story of my migration from FB3 to
> From: Ali Awan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thanks Mike and Doug, for pointing me in the right direction.
> I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't
> figure out how to define listeners and events, in a way that
> makes sense for the applications I write and work on.
> For now
Thanks Mike and Doug, for pointing me in the right direction.
I'm still pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. I still can't figure out how to
define listeners and events, in a way that makes sense for the applications I
write and work on.
For now I'll probably stick to Fusebox 4, and troll the lists
-
From: Ali Awan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: MX Methodologies (Mach2?? Fusebox??)
I was wondering if anyone on here has had any experience upgrading their
CF apps (pre-MX) to the Mach2 framework?
If so, how would you advise someone who
I'd head over to mach-ii.com and mach-ii.info. mach-ii.info has info
on signing up for the mach-ii list. I just started wrapping my head
around mach-ii, its not the framework that's the difficulty really,
its re-training ur head to think more OO then the old spaghetti.
Doug
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004
I was wondering if anyone on here has had any experience upgrading their CF
apps (pre-MX) to the Mach2 framework?
If so, how would you advise someone who was attempting to upgrade an app
written for CF 5.0 to Mach2. (I'm upgrading to MX also, obviously).
I have seen examples of Mach2, like Shop
56 matches
Mail list logo
