Just wanted to clarify why I made the point in the first place. The deal
was, I went to check out sites of the day. Buddha boom, budda bing, the page
is crashed. *I* see the error page and notice that it's running on Mach
II. Now here is what I am actually Thinking. Some time ago, I attended
Macromedia CF classes with Fig Leaf in Washington D.C. (shameless plug for
them, but they did a great job and I was very pleased). The approved
Macromedia training talks about "Macromedia Development" methods. Not
"Fuse-box", or "Mach II" (though in reality I have nothing against either. I
just find them not necessary. Said another way, you could wear a jacket
outside, but you don't have to.it's a matter of personal choice). The
argument goes, We teach you one way (roughly 1,000 per person per class.
hotel, food, beer not included), but we will use something different in real
world practice. That is comparative to Microsoft doing MS Office and
building it all on someone else's controls. I just find that a bit odd. It
also implies that the suggested application development methods (just take a
look at the applications development guide that came with your CFMX CD-ROM)
is not actually the best method. If that is the case, then Macromedia
should be supporting the most sound application development methods that in
their documentation.
// Jaye Morris | Principal Design Technologist
// jayeZERO.com | a design studio
// [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.jayeZERO.com
_____
From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:31 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
> things as fuse box, etc. really are not needed.
How familiar are you with Mach II and things such as Fusebox? Have you
actively used them yourself?
Ken
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
