before this degenerates further into what every other fusebox thread ultimately degenerates into...
all blanket statements are bad :) Using fusebox (or any other framework of your choice) won't automatically make your code "good". Even die-hard fuseboxers (or users of any other framework) will tell you that. Not using fusebox does not automatically make your code "bad". To each their own. Luckily, we all agree on IDEs... :D On 6/6/06, Munson, Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, you are correct, I can make any FB application have better > > performance characteristics by ripping out the FB. I just won't be > > able to modify it tomorrow with any sort of effectiveness, and the > > vast majority of applications are better served with easier > > development and maintenance than runtime performance. > > See here is where we part ways. It really bothers me that most > framework fans profess that because a framework makes code easier to > maintain, non-framework code is not easy to maintain. The latter is a > false blanket statement. Yes, there are a lot of terribly written > non-framework sites that are excruciatingly difficult to maintain. But > it /is/ possible, and fairly easy I might add, to write scalable, > portable, and flexible CF code without using a framework. > > However, like you said, some frameworks offer some good tools not > available in CF. And, like you said, frameworks offer the benefit of a > common style that other developers will be able to jump into your code > with ease (assuming it's a well written app and they know your > framework). > > Again, I am not saying that frameworks are bad, I just get tired of > hearing the non-framework=bad code argument. I'll leave you with an > example. The other day my boss asked me to make a change in an Intranet > app I help maintain that I didn't build. The original developer uses a > very procedural coding style, but I understand it and it works. It took > me about 5 minutes to figure out what I need to do, and about 5 minutes > to make the change. And the change I'm talking about was a new complex > financial calculation that was an addition to an existing page. And > this change required the use of JavaScript data mixed with ColdFusion > data. Why was it so easy? Because I was able to leverage his existing > 'framework', or rather his functions/variables/conventions. However, > I'm not saying that procedural programming is good, I prefer a more OO > approach. But this example illustrates that it's often very easy to > update a non-framework site, especially if it was written in CF. > > > ---------------- > > This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential > and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any > reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission > in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in > its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. A1. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:242671 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
