Angus, ever happen to see this page? http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?&fuseaction=learn.resourceList
Or this one http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?&fuseaction=framework.languages Or this one http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?&fuseaction=methodology.personas Or this one http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?&fuseaction=learn.FAQ#Q3 Well, ... I think you get the point ... H. > -----Original Message----- > From: Angus McFee [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:09 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: RE: re: Mach-II > > Matt - > > Good to hear from a fellow fuseboxer! > > No, this isn't a joke, this guy clearly has a problem with what fusebox > has become and has made this other framework that clearly doesn't do most > of what Fusebox is capable of. I don' t think him having helped make > fusebox or having been in a few books makes a huge difference. My dog has > been in a few books, that doesn't mean he don't hate cats. > > But this really sounds like he is dissing fusebox. "Mach-II, though, is > meant to be a pure OO framework. Fusebox and Mach-II have in common some > good software engineering principles, but are very different things. I'm > really referring to (a) backwards compatibility and (b) cross-language > compatibility." > > These things aren't new and they don't do something you can't do with > fusebox already. Fusebox already works in ColdFusion, PHP, ASP, JSP and > Perl, and I have even seen a TCL port for the framework. In PHP, you can > do all the object oriented programming you want, so I don't see why there > would be a need for this "mach-ii" except to take away from fusebox. > > This guy is just one of the ones who is never going to get what it is all > about. > > Angus McFee > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:37 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Mach-II > > This is a joke right? > -Matt > On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 04:08 PM, Angus McFee wrote: > > Hal - > > > > I've heard from plenty of people looking for a way to beat up on > > Fusebox, but usually they have nothing to say when it comes to > > building a better framework. This is the first time in a long time > > anyone has suggested an alternative approach, and I really don't see > > how any of this benefits developers. This mach-ii stuff looks like > > just another petty attack on Fusebox. > > > > It's pretty clear we see things differently when it comes to building > > Web applications. I don't know you, but I can tell you are a pretty > > intelligent person, so you probably have some good reasons for why you > > don't like or hate fusebox. > > > > What I have to ask you is: do you use fusebox? Becuase there are > > plenty of people who are ready to attack it anytime and don't even > > know ColdFusion, much less what a framework is. You will probably > > never be convinced about the benefits of fusebox, all I can do is > > disagree with you, and point out all the great things fusebox does for > > developers: > > > > * it separates business logic from presentation logic, making for more > > organized, efficent code > > * 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 > > * it modularizes and encapsulates code, making it easier to reuse and > > thus to maintain > > * it is self-documenting, containing a complete, inline XML standard > > for documenting your applications > > * 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 > > > > Angus McFee > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:16 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: RE: re: Mach-II > > > > You're right, Dave. We're not looking to be able to incorporate > > Fusebox 3 (or 4) with Mach-II. We think that Fusebox is a great > > framework for procedural programmers. (Please, God, don't let this > > degenerate into yet another pro/con Fusebox debate...) > > Mach-II, though, is meant to be a pure OO framework. Fusebox and > > Mach-II have in common some good software engineering principles, but > > are very different things. I'm really referring to (a) backwards > > compatibility and (b) cross-language compatibility. > > Hal Helms > > "Java for CF Programmers" class > > in Las Vegas, August 18-22 > > www.halhelms.com > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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
