>From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Fusebox - whats the big deal anyway?
>Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:40:35 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from houseoffusion.com ([64.118.64.245]) by mc10-f15.hotmail.com
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 07:41:44 -0800
>Received: from LOCALHOST by LOCALHOSTwith ESMTP id
>30045C023E8582468E3D520A082934F8Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:42:35 -0500
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jG1E9vxVrksLhstvHXzWk8m
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Precedence: bulk
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2003 15:41:46.0922 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[9F5E48A0:01C3BCD8]
>
> > Then there's always the "job security" issue. If I write it so that
> > nobody else could ever understand what the hell it's doing, the client
> > can't ever fire me.....
> >
>Actually, I think the whole "secret sauce" argument is bunk. Any
>application that is written in a modular way using a published
>framework or not should be easy to understand by someone else. It isn't
>really that Fusebox enables others developers to join an existing
>project to get up to speed quicker; it is the fact the Fusebox forces
>an application to be modular and organized. Any application that is
>modular and organized would allow the same thing.
>
>-Matt
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
