didn't say you did:-)) Anecdotally I am just having fun.... B. Friday, July 18, 2003, 4:37:41 PM, you wrote:
ML> I didn't claim 6% of Java users use Struts nor did I claim that 6% of ML> CF developers use Fusebox. I simply threw out anecdotal numbers for the ML> sake a comparison. ML> -Matt ML> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:45 PM, Birgit Pauli-Haack wrote: >> Don't fight this people! This is not comparing oranges with apples >> this is just the right thing! >> >> 6% of Jave user use Strute, 6% of CF Developer use Fusebox! >> Struts compared to Fusebox...! >> >> That doesn't say much about Struts, but it tells a lot about >> Fusebox! Is has come a long way and it finally made it into the >> league where it receives serious considerations from a lot of high >> class >> programmers, that have been all time opponents! >> >> Congrats to Steve, Hal, Nat, John, Eric, Jeff and others that worked >> on it so faithfully and persistent.! >> >> This is a great! Made my day! And if you are out there Buddies, I hope >> it >> made your day as well! >> >> Matt thank you! >> >> Birgit Pauli-Haack >> >> PS: hey it's Friday <chuckle> >> >> >> Friday, July 18, 2003, 3:29:46 PM, you wrote: >> SC> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> SC> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:00 PM >> SC> To: CF-Talk >> SC> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox >> >> >> SC> I saw this thread mentioned on Sean's blog and I was thinking about >> SC> rejoining this list before reading his blog, so here I am. I'm not >> SC> interested in trying to rehash much of the debate since I am late >> to >> SC> this thread, but I feel like it is important to make at least a >> couple >> SC> of points. >> >> SC> First, I largely agree with Dave's position in this debate, but I >> don't >> SC> agree with him in regards to his application of common sense in >> lieu of >> SC> a framework. I think frameworks are extremely valuable and can >> make an >> SC> enormous difference in the success of web applications especially >> where >> SC> more than 3 people on working on them. Of course, picking the wrong >> SC> framework for an application can lead to all sorts of problems, so >> the >> SC> notion of one framework being the correct one in every case should >> be >> SC> abandoned. >> >> SC> Second, I have seen numerous references by Fusebox people both in >> and >> SC> out of this thread in regards to how the sheer number of people >> using >> SC> Fusebox is an important point. I like to put that into perspective >> a >> SC> bit. According to Fusebox.org, there are 17756 using Fusebox. Not >> sure >> SC> where that number comes from, but let's apply that to the number >> of CF >> SC> developers, which is supposed to be about 300,000. That would mean >> SC> about 6% of CF developers are using Fusebox. Now then, let's assume >> SC> that 6% of Java developers are using Struts. Since there is >> supposed to >> SC> be about 3,000,000 Java developers that would mean there would be >> SC> 180,000 Java developers using Struts. >> >> SC> There are a lot of reasons why one would use Struts over Fusebox >> and >> SC> vice versa, but if sheer numbers matter to people than Struts is >> the >> SC> way to go since it is used by a lot more people. BTW, if you don't >> buy >> SC> the above numbers; take a look at the Amazon.com sales rankings >> for the >> SC> 10+ struts books vs. the Fusebox books. >> >> SC> -Matt >> >> SC> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> SC> >> ML> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
