You are absolutely correct. For Macromedia to use a framework on their site implies the site is built according to a cookie cutter design. Further, as many people on this list have already pointed out, using a framework implies endorsement of that framework. I totally disagree with the notion, however, that a custom framework should be developed as it will bring up endless speculation as to what the company is endorsing.
Macromedia would be better off using no framework at all. Let's face it, a framework is just a loosely connected group of ideas anyways, that offers a temporary development efficency until something new (read: flash RIAs, CFCs, UDFs, none of which were anticipated by any of the major public CF frameworks) comes along. No one is going to build something that anticipates the greater efficencies gained through new features or capacities, and (except for the most trivial Web sites) no site is going to be maintainable for very long under such conditions. Think of it as the Web equivalent of Moore's law. Something new is always coming along at a fairly regular schedule, and Macromedia would be better off avoiding unintended endorsements that could come back to haunt their customers when they try to take advantage of the latest standards in a few years. Complete rewrites of sites are the result of this confounded logic, and they don't really do much good for your customers.
One other criticism of this practice of 'adopting a framework' that would be very fair is they are all written in English. Considering the current trends in offshoring and labor tinkering, customers are being provided with a poor quality product when they receive a site coded and documented in English. They would be better off using a framework that supports Kenji, Mandarin, Arabic and Cyrillic, and there is no framework in wide adoption that meets this basic criteria.
Developing large scale Web sites without the use of a framework would avoid all of these problems. A total lack of standards would remove the element of endorsement and the appearance of a 'cookie-cutter' approach to development. It would give teams the ability to rapidly implement anything new thing they felt like, when they felt like it, and without having to go through a massive rewrite of code along the way. It would remove the limitations of language and nuances which prevent the understanding of ideas across cultures.
Angus McFee
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:07 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:Macromedia.com running on top of Mach II
I think it is totally foolish for MM to be using Mach-II on their site. Lets be honest here. FB and Mach-II are frameworks. They allow programmers to write code quickly because parts of the code is already written. They also allow multiple programmers to work on a project because they all have to use the same framework (the front of HoF has a small piece of framework vs. methodology). So far this sounds good, right?
The problem with every framework that exists is that it has to be generalized. It is almost totally non-specific because it has to be used on site A, site B, etc. This leads to code that may work but is not the tightest, fastest or even the most optimized for the site. MM should be going the tight, optimized, elegant code route. Instead they're going the 'mass production' route. They should be beyond that point.
No, I'm not against FB, Mach-II or any other framework. As I said, they have their time and place. It's just when you want a site to be perfect (or close to it), you write it custom. Create a solid methodology and stick to it. Make sure your programmers stick to it. Organize your code and your resources. Don't do ANY code that is not necessary. Frameworks like Mach-II have a lot of code that is necessary for the framework but not always necessary for the site.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
