come on.. you didn't cc this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..??? I want to see what they
have to say !! ;) But I agree with you.. I've used FB2 quite a bit and didn't
know where to begin with FB3 and said the heck with it. I barely have enough
time to keep up on changing times with CF let alone throw fusebox into the mix..
"Stephen Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/16/2002 10:36:44 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Scott Raley/LPEC/ASD/SEMCORINC)
Subject: Re: Throwing the baby back
Mike,
> Don't let Hal Helms hear you say that.
>
> The Fusebox specification is a set of core files which are distributed with
> a demo to help you learn how to work.
>
I hate to be a pedant, but I have to agree with Jeffry on this :
spec?i?fi?ca?tion (sps-f-kshn)
n.
1.. The act of specifying.
2..
1.. specifications A detailed, exact statement of particulars, especially a
statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and quality of work for something
to be built, installed, or manufactured.
2.. A single item or article that has been specified.
3.. An exact written description of an invention by an applicant for a patent.
Therefore a bunch of files and a couple of demos, do not a specification
make.... And before anyone mentions them, a couple of books interpreting a
deluge of emails with no written word to base them on are not specifications
either.
This is one of my pet peeves with FB3. There is no written word on how it
should be used or should work. At least with FB2 there were the couple of white
papers and Steve Nelson's book was a pretty good go at specifying the Fusebox
methodology.
Another pet peeve with FB3 is it is virtually unreadable! One of the original
tenets of Fusebox was that the code that was generated by a developer using FB
code be given to another developer with no knowledge of Fusebox and they would
be able to easily see what is happening in the code, what is being called where
etc. etc. It was supposed to be and was self documenting to some extent. FB3
is a biggest pile of unreadable spaghetti you could possibly have the misfortune
to come across.
For instance.... I've been coding with FB for about 4 years now, probably a bit
longer. I've had various conversations with Steve Nelson, Craig Girard et al,
back when the FB list was on Michael's mail server and it wasn't so insane. So
you'd think I have a pretty good grasp of the Fusebox method..... Well it would
seem not... I went to a client to talk about server performance tuning and an
element of code performance tuning. They asked me if I would have a look at a
real example and give them my thoughts. They told me it was a FB application,
so I said, yeah sure no problem.
I opened up the code......... I tried to work out what the files were being
included to display the home page.... I treked back and forth through the
various core files, step by step, line by line, with the client looking over my
shoulder.
We never managed to find what was actually displaying the home page in the hour
that we had allocated to look at the code. Admittedly, we were looking at other
aspects of the code as well, but we still should have been able to get to the
templates for the home page within a few moments......
Arrgghhh! Now I'm on a rant too!
Another thing that annoys me about FB3 is that people think that it makes good
code automatically. It doesn't! Even making use of some of the undocumented
techniques does not make good code. FB3 is only good in the right situation and
if you use all parts of the method, right from analysis right through to coding.
It is no longer a coding standard, but an analysis and design methodology. So
many many people fail to see this and try to just use their own interpretation
undocumented coding standards to write their applications and make a lovely
paste dish!
At least FB2 was documented, was only a suggestion for a coding standard and was
readable. It had the advantage of having tools to help you with additional
documentation (the original fusedocs) and for developing the application
(DevNotes and wireframes)
> Maybe the Fusebox council needs to do a little more to promote awareness of
> their product.
>
/expletive deleted/ What they need to do is write the document that explains
Fusebox from start to finish, make it freely available and create multiple core
files for each possible installation of CF (why do I need code that handles
Linux file paths and Apache CGI variables, when I'm running on IIS5 on Windows
2000???) I believe someone out there started writing their own coding practice
white paper called KISS (Keep It Simple Specificiation or something like that).
This is something that has been forgotten with FB3 and maybe thats what the
Fusebox Council need to be doing..... Getting back to basics and keeping it
simple!
~takes deep breath and quits ranting~
Going back to what Michael started on...
> Yes, I'm ranting a bit. I'm helping out a friend with a project and modifying
> a commercial product (one he paid money for). Now you'd expect that a
commercial
> product would have good code, right? You'd expect that a product that
supposedly
> followed a methodology would have good code, right? That the code would be
written
> intelligently, that it would not repeat itself or fall over itself, right?
Well, this code is poorly
> written, does not use any best practices (I see CFSETs with pound signs around
everything),
> uses one of the Fusebox methodologies (one of as the methodology has
splintered) and is just
> not good code. And I have to make it good code.
>
Heh heh... Yeah right... Commercial code that is good code....
~snigger~ isn't that why commercial code is always encrypted??
> I'm going to start CF classes. If you write bad code, you get hit with a shock
prod. If
> you release bad code, you get abused by a large bull (let your imagination run
free here).
> It'll be learn it right and tight or wish you were in a Turkish jail being
interrogated by Abdul.
>
I've got a pressure washer here that you could use for water torture, if you
like.... :o)
I'll shut up now and get on with some work..... ;o)
Stephen
______________________________________________________________________
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
