Hey, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade :) ----- Original Message ----- From: Fregas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 pm Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX
> Yeah, I agree. I'm so sick of the divisions. Mac vs PC, Microsoft > vs The > Word, Java vs .NET, my programming language can beat up your > programminglanguage. > > I say: The right tool for the right job. > > I don't consider myself a Cfer, .NETer, ASPer, Microsft or Java > bigot. I'm > just a programmer and I'll use what I'm able to. > > Except for netscape browsers--those suck ass. > > :) > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:03 PM > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > Fregas said: > > "One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any > particular> methodology is it taught me how to best structure a > web application. It > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, > cfmodule, > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I > think that's > > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to use some > > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided but > aren't> exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology > and that you > > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You don't need > fusebox > > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before." > > > > Ya I think that nails it....great for green CFers that don't get > exposureto > > the (and don't flame me for saying this) "real" side of web > application> development as opposed to just something written in > CF. Of course > > ultimately if you write your code properly then anyone should be > able to > > understand it and it should be constructed so that updates and > additions> work with minimal hassle etc. etc. blah blah blah > > > > Wow...could we be heading towards the bright shiny light of > FBers and > > regular CFers coming together in peace and understanding ;-) > > > > Great points today folks...much more productive than the usual > FB vs.no FB > > mud slingin! > > > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > t. 250.920.8830 > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Macromedia Associate Partner > > www.macromedia.com > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > > Founder & Director > > www.cfug-vancouverisland.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Fregas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:47 PM > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > Bryan, > > > > > > I started with just plain old vanilla cf. I hadn't done any web > > > programming, only a little VB5-6 and some basic and pascal years > earlier, > > so > > > I was a pretty green programmer. > > > > > > Well, as I mentioned we had done some terrible things to our > CFML code: > > many > > > levels of nested includes, copying and pasting of code such as > queriesand > > > display logic, etc. Once I heard about fusebox it took me a > while to > get > > a > > > feel for it, but when I understood it, it helped tremendously. > > > > > > One thing that fusebox did that has nothing to do with any > particular> > methodology is it taught me how to best structure a > web application. It > > > taught me more about custom tags, application & session variables, > > cfmodule, > > > naming conventions, logical organization of modules, etc. I think > that's > > > one benefit with fusebox for new CFers is it forces them to > use some > > > features in CF and architecture that they might have avoided > but aren't > > > exclusive to fusebox by any means. > > > > > > I think that as long as you're using some kind of methodology > and that > you > > > write clean modularized code, you are in good shape. You > don't need > > fusebox > > > to do this, but it helps if you haven't done this before. > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:39 PM > > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > > > > Couldn't have said it better myself Michael > > > > > > > > Do what works for you and your projects ;-) > > > > > > > > I still wouldn't mind hearing from the FBers out there.... > > > > > > > > Did you start CF with FB or pickup FB along the way? > > > > > > > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > > > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > > > t. 250.920.8830 > > > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Macromedia Associate Partner > > > > www.macromedia.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > > > > Founder & Director > > > > www.cfug-vancouverisland.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Michael Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:40 PM > > > > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I totally understand where you're coming from. I > wasn't> trying > > > > > to imply that Fusebox is better, because for some people it > certainly > > is > > > > > not. And, you are right--A methodology is supposed to make > development > > > > > smoother; or at least more standardized. If it doesn't > then you > > > > > shouldn't use it. Given that Fusebox has been through so many > changes > > > > > and because there are now several hybrids available that > addressmany > > of > > > > > the issues developers have faced in the past, I was simply > suggesting > > > > > that you re-test the waters to determine if the workaround > issuesyou > > > > > are concerned with still exist. > > > > > > > > > > In any case, you seem to be very comfortable and > productive within > > your > > > > > own methodology; that is all that truly counts. :) > > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > MW > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:21 PM > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > Subject: Re: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope..ya missed my point....CFMX migration was just an > example.> > > > but now we're heading towards what's better ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
