I agree, but he said a "good programmer", not a good PM, or even a good FB programmer.
Yup, but I think my own personal structured methodology is just fine. From what I know of FB, my own methodology mirrors some of it's stronger points, without having every little detail spelled out like FB is anyway. Besides, after they showed CFC's off at the Devcon, I immediately knew FB was dead. Until CFC's FB may have been necessary for those who wanted a methodology, but not any more. Now we can do OO CF... jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: Re: Conversations... > You are looking at this from the side of someone who would get handed a > fusedoced fuse snippit to write. What they are talking about is more from > the point of view of the PM. What they will be eventually getting to is the > whole point of FLiP .. distributed application development. Like Hal > mentioned in this mopnth's edition of CFDJ, if you are doing a small to med. > project by yourself, then the only benifit you are likely to see is well > structured code with fewer revisions, which you could probably give or take. > Hal and Steve's conversations are starting to gravitate more to large scale > projects being built in a team environment. > > I used to resist FB as well. Then I finaly started using it and now I can't > stand any other way. I would have imagined that a clear structured > methodology would appeal to a left brained person, would it not? > > Todd > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
