>From your original messsage: "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'm saying that the official FB people do not do this. So, tell me again why Brian's comment somehow refutes this statement. ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 pm Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > I am aware that it is Brian's own opinion and that of anyone else > who > has made a statement like that. Whether Brian is associated with > Fusebox officially is irrelevant. I shared the quote from this > thread > simply as an example in regards to the statement I made. > > -Matt > > On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > That's Brian's own opinion. He is not a member of the Fusebox team. > > > > On Fusebox.org's web page: > > > > "Fusebox is a standard framework and methodology for building > > web-based applications. Currently used by well over 17762 people > from > > around the world, Fusebox attempts to reduce the 70% software > failure > > rate (download 105KB) by creating a standard framework and > methodology > > for writing web applications and managing web development projects." > > > > Nothing special there. Certainly doesn't sound like they're > tooting > > their own horn. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 pm > > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > >> How about the following quote from this thread for example. > >> > >> "When compared to the alternatives (no structure at all, someone's > >> > >> personal > >> best guess at something, or some superior approach that > conspicuously>> manages to never actually be revealed) it is the > best thing I've > >> found > >> so > >> far. And about 17,000 other people agree. " > >> > >> -Matt > >> > >> On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 04:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>> I don't think the Fusebox people are using that X number to say > >> that > >>> because there are so many X people using FB, so should you. > >> Rather, > >>> it's there for informational purposes, and to say that, yeah, > >> people > >>> are using it. Maybe not a lot in comparison to some other > >> framework, > >>> but the only winner in a comparison like that is the most > >> popular item > >>> in it's class. > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:34 pm > >>> Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > >>> > >>>> 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 [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 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
