Andrew Tyrone writes: >The phrase "use what works for you" comes to mind. I don't think a lot of >people that DON'T use Fusebox are "opponents" -- but many have credible >reasons why they don't use it.
I actually haven't really seen any specific things that people don't like about Fusebox...just lots of statements like it's too much "trouble", or "overhead", or how they can pick one thing about Fusebox and do it in a different way. And I can promise you that there are PLENTY of people that don't use Fusebox and are quite ready to attack at any time. I haven't seen much of that in this discussion, which is very refreshing. >I have my own >methodology and framework, and to say that people that have their own >"secret sauce" keep it from others intentionally is ridiculous. It's like >political arguments -- people just can't accept that what THEY think isn't >what everyone else thinks. Also, I don't have the time to publish my >framework, and I could care less if anyone thinks it's because I am >"keeping" it from them because I think it's "better" than their precious >Fusebox. That's fine, I wish you the best of luck with your personally-created framework. If it works for you, that is what truly matters. But when people say "Fusebox is too much trouble" and then "my approach is better", but never actually reaveal their approach, then what can we say? How can we respond to something that we have never seen? >To tell you the truth, I've seen better arguments here against using it than >for using it. Again, I haven't seen a true argument "against" Fusebox here, other than general statements like "I can do X (pick one thing) which Fusebox does on my own. So why should I use Fusebox?" or "Fusebox is too much trouble". These are not specific and, to me, don't constitute any "argument" at all. If someone can truly point out, in specific terms, what they consider to be problems with Fusebox, I'll gladly try to address them, and if necessary, admit Fusebox's limitations if the point is valid. >I've also seen people get angry when others refuse to adopt >it. I think the underlying psychology is "they don't like what I like, so >they don't like me, either." I'm not saying that about everyone that uses >Fusebox, but some people are downright fanatical when other people actually >give reasons and specific examples of why they don't think Fusebox is a >Godsend. >You would think that people like Dave Watts just came on here and said >"Fusebox sucks, don't use it", instead of taking the time to give their >feedback on it based on real-world interaction. I've witnessed the personal >attacks against a lot of people who don't use it -- just another sad attempt >to discredit someone or some company that doesn't use it by stooping to >levels unbecoming of a professional. I certainly know I have not acted like this, nor have I seen anyone else in this discussion behave this way. Please don't condemn the whole Fusebox community or the framework for the overzealousness of a fraction of its users. The vast majority in the Fusebox community are incredibly polity, intelligent, and eager to help. Again, if anyone has SPECIFIC issues I'll be happy to discuss them. If anyone acts in a mean-spirited way, I'll be happy to condemn them. And if anyone has an approach that they consider to be superior to Fusebox, I'll be happy to consider it. Regards, Brian ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
