Sigh... Where did he say anywhere that those benefits are exclusive to fusebox?
Point is, fusebox provides those benefits, not that they're the exclusive domain of fusebox... ----- Original Message ----- From: Calvin Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:52 pm Subject: Re: RE: RE: re: Mach-II > I have to comment on this.... > > > > * it separates business logic from presentation logic, making for > > > more organized, efficent code > > Seperating presentation from logic is not limited to, nor requires the > Fusebox methodology. > > > > * it gives developers a common set of rules and methods to work > > > from, so that everyone can understand what the other people are > > > doing on a project regardless of the size of a team > > Common sets of rules and methods are not limited to, nor require > the Fusebox > methodology. > > > > * it modularizes and encapsulates code, making it easier to reuse > > > and thus to maintain > > Encapsulation is not limited to, nor requires the Fusebox methodology. > > > > * it is self-documenting, containing a complete, inline XML > > > standard for documenting your applications > > I wouldn't consider that feature of fusebox as self documenting, > the inline > XML is a clever way of organizing comments in code that allows > access to > them in ways other than opening source code. This is not limited > to, nor > requires the Fusebox methodology. > > > > * most importantly, there are thousands and thousands of fusebox > > > developers out there, and more and more shops are choosing to use > > > it every day. it is close to becoming a de-facto standard, > which I > > > doubt your mach-ii 'framework' will ever be able to match > > This is the only semi-valid point. I think mach-ii has a lot more > promisethan Fusebox for object oriented development. Fusebox was > an attempt to > bring OO into a procedural framework. Successful? Certainly. > Effective?Apparently. Overwhelmingly so? I don't think so. > > Any methodology is better than no methodology, and the right > methodologydepends on the developer(s), the company, and/or the > project. > Fusebox is not inherently better than all other methodologies, > with the > caveat that it is more widely used than any other methodology for > CF, as far > as the casual observer can see. > > - Calvin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
