Matt, I'm with you on that, I even incorporated a good portion of Sean's guidelines into our guidelines :) They be good stuff!
- Calvin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox > Calvin Ward said: > >ColdFusion seems to shield the developer from the more > >arcane phraseology and syntax used by lower level languages, and > Fusebox > >seems to introduce the arcane right back on top of it... > > Calvin, in one sentence you articulated what I was unable to in, what... > 100 across this thread? Nail on the head. > > I don't think CF needs to be complex to be understandable by coders > other than the original one. CF is simple to follow and this is a > benefit to be preserved, not thrown away in the interest of > standardization, regardless of the fact it does have some inarguable > benefits, the KISS principle should rule. > > Do I have a better solution? No, but this lack doesn't invalidate the > right to make the observation, as some have suggested. > > If everyone just read Sean Corfield's code guidelines and took them to > heart that'd be most of the battle won right there. > > -------------------------------------------- > Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > -------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:39 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > Exactly so... > > Just an odd opinion. ColdFusion seems to shield the developer from the > more > arcane phraseology and syntax used by lower level languages, and Fusebox > seems to introduce the arcane right back on top of it... > > - Calvin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael T. Tangorre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:38 PM > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > > X(exit) F(fuse) A(actions) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Calvin Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:37 PM > > Subject: Re: Cons to Fusebox > > > > > > > XFA? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Mosh Teitelbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:39 AM > > > Subject: RE: Cons to Fusebox > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > Yes, but the earlier comments I was responding to were suggesting > that > > > > Fusebox allows individual developers to know Fusebox but not have > to > > know > > > > the specific details of the current FB implementation. For > example, > the > > > > developer can know to read the FuseDoc at the top of the file and > can > > know > > > > to plugin <FORM ACTION="#someXFA#"> but not have to know that > sometimes > > > this > > > > form targets "foo.add" and other times targets "foo.edit". As an > > example > > > of > > > > why this is problematic, if the developer doesn't know about both > > targets, > > > > he can't know to test his code against both targets. It also > makes it > > > more > > > > difficult to debug any problem that crop up. Adding some code to > fix > > one > > > > problem may unknowingly cause another problem when going to a > different > > > > target. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
