> I'm not going to get involved much further in this thread > because just about everything has been said.
I think you're already involved as deeply as possible. > Folks who don't like Fusebox still don't like it. While I still don't like it, I do have a better understanding of why others might like it, and perhaps would even agree that it may help some people with their development process. Without this thread, I probably wouldn't have that understanding. > Folks that like Fusebox still like it. Folks who don't > know about Fusebox, or haven't looked at it lately, might > have reason to investigate it further. And it is to those > people, not the detractors or the evangalists, that my > effort has truly been directed. And in that case, your participation was certainly a good thing. I would strongly recommend that people take a look at anything they think might help them be better developers, with the caveat that they shouldn't believe everything anyone says, and judge for themselves. > Part of the answer is that Fusebox just works. Seriously, how do you measure that? > But the majority of folks using it clearly are not having > failures; they are having successes. Perhaps. I doubt that either of us have access to useful statistics on that point. But let's say that you're right about this. In that case, are they successful because of Fusebox? Or are they successful because they're the kind of people more likely to think about how their application is structured? Or are they successful because any rigid framework is better than no rigid framework? You may not think these questions are important, but I do. In my experience, the successful projects I've seen (Fusebox and non-Fusebox) tended to be successful in my estimation because the people on those projects were more thoughtful about them, before they started writing code. > But the real benefit to having a huge, and ever growing, base > of Fusebox developers, is the speed at which these developers > can understand, maintain, and contribute to existing Fusebox > applications. The more people who use it, the more > widespread the standard becomes and the more likely > development projects are to adopt it. It's a symbiotic > relationship; a cycle. While some may claim that new > developers can come into an existing project and instantly > pick up whatever custom framework or architecture is used, I > believe that in reality this happens extremely rarely. I > think everyone will agree that just because ColdFusion is an > easy language to understand does not necessarily mean that > all ColdFusion applications are easy to understand. Again, in my experience, I've run into two things which make me doubt this. First, I've seen plenty of competent developers who were easily able to figure out what's going on in a current project, without it using Fusebox or any other framework as formal. Second, I've seen plenty of Fusebox code where no one (including other experienced Fusebox developers on the same project) could make heads or tails out of it. Of course, that's just my anecdotal experience, and yours may differ. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
