I am aware of what you are saying and I do NOT refute it with or without Brian's comment. However, since my original email never specified official Fusebox people I don't see the relevance.
-Matt On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 05:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 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 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
