I think it's time from a group hug. Come on over Matt! :) ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:02 pm Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox
> > 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 > peoplewith 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 > wouldstrongly 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 > betterthan 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 > codewhere 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
