See my response to another email along similar lines. However, I'd to respond to your email a little differently.
Based on my earlier message it could be said that there is 10 times as many Java developers as CF developers, so why would one use CF over Java? There are tons of answers to that question that I think most of us know. In fact, we know these answers so well that we disregard the number of Java developers as irrelevant. Now then... with so many more people using Struts as opposed to Fusebox (both of which can be used in Java and CF), why would one use Fusebox over Struts? The answers to that question aren't as important as realizing that most CF developers don't know them. Thus, whenever someone tries to sell Fusebox based on the number of people using it the obvious question remains, why not use something with a greater following? I don't use Struts or Fusebox, so I don't care. I only point this out to show how silly the whole "17,000 people use Fusebox and you should too" line is. -Matt On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:29 PM, Sandy Clark wrote: > Why are you comparing the numbers using a Java Framework to the numbers > using a ColdFusion framework? Isn't that like comparing Appes to > Oranges? It > has no meaning. Does this mean that because there are more Java > Programmers, we should all just stop using CF and move to Java?? > > Struts is the most popular framework for Java. It doesn't mean that > Struts > can be used in C++ Development, nor does it mean that it can be used in > ColdFusion development (I did read the article on DevNet), but not > everyone > is doing cross Java/CFMX development. > > Instead compare Apples to Apples. Compare Struts to something like > JADE > (IBM) or Barracuda. Compare Fusebox to things like BlackBox or > SmartObjects. > > Those are true comparisons I would like to see. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about > rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not > interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late to > this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a couple > of points. > > First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I don't > agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in lieu of > a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can make an > enormous difference in the success of web applications especially where > more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong > framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so the > notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should be > abandoned. > > Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in and > out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people using > Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective a > bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not sure > where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number of CF > developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean > about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume > that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is supposed to > be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be > 180,000 Java developers using Struts. > > There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox and > vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is the > way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't buy > the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings for the > 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books. > > -Matt > > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Erik Yowell wrote: > >>> >>> Trade offs. Everything is a trade off. Sometimes the quick, >>> unstructured 'hack' is the right solution... >>> >> >> This for me (being a small shop) is why I've extensively adopted a >> framework like Fusebox. Most of my projects are not going to become an >> Amazon.com anytime soon, while this doesn't mean I should write sloppy >> code - it does allow the flexibility of allowing a bit of a processing >> overhead in lieu of manageability and the ability to bring in external >> talent to easily assist me in changes (if needed) by providing a good >> set of standards and the Fusebox docs. I don't have to spend precious >> time educating another developer on the intricacies of a custom >> framework. >> >> Despite what organizations like Rational think (in the sense that >> there >> is no such thing as RAD development) - I mean, come on now, how many >> developers out there have had the "I needed it yesterday" conversation >> with a client? I find having the ability to quickly find and make >> changes to medium sized projects, forced structuring of code and >> application processes to be a boon. >> >> Erik Yowell >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://www.shortfusemedia.com >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
