Jacob,
I agree that those who make frameworks should focus more on making
them more approachable. There is quite a debate regarding XML vs.
programmatic configurations and I lean on the side of programattic
configs because most XML configs introduce "vender" specific terms and
mark up that you have to learn. However, the time and energy it takes
to learn the configs to leverage the power of any framework will end
up paying for itself in the end.
For those who would like to continue writing poorly architectured code
(if you use any architecture at all!) can continue doing so if they
like, but don't expect to get paid more than $45,000/yr. However, I
plead with you to at least learn the basics of the MVC design pattern.
Even if you throw all of your crummy code in each layer, without any
CFCs or OO, do yourself a favor and seperate out your business logic
(model) from your view and use a controller layer for your action
pages ("just say NO" to self posting forms).
Regardless, one must keep in mind that you can use the MVC design
pattern without a lick of OOP, can use OOP without a implementing a
single framework, but cannot get paid the big bucks to write less code
and build more applications using frameworks which do approx. 60% of
the work for you. MVC NEQ OOP AND OOP NEQ "frameworks".
Jonathan - quit winning about how hard it is to learn OOP and avail
yourself of the plethora of resources available to you. Coders are
lazy, but they are not stupid. Neither are you! You can learn it -
every other computer science major has learned OOP to some degree.
-Aaron
On 3/22/07, Jacob Munson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, actually, this isn't entirely true. The idea of a "controller"
> > predates MVC, and was commonly used in CGI programs written in procedural
> > languages. For example, one of the first primitive web applications I wrote
> > was in Visual Basic (!), and it was modelled after the example VB code
> > provided with WebSite, an early Windows web server. It consisted of a main
> > subroutine which acted as a controller, using URL parameters to invoke other
> > specific subroutines, which were part of the same compiled executable.
>
> Thanks Dave, that is what I meant. If you look at the Java world,
> I've heard there truly are hundreds of frameworks. And from what
> you've said, the idea of a controller is not new to Fusebox nor
> ColdFusion.
>
> I don't want to paint myself as a frameworks basher, if people find
> them valuable, more power to them. I just think the frameworks
> authors could put more effort into making their framework
> approachable, and one way to do that is to use common langauge that
> everybody understands. It's already asking a lot for someone to learn
> a new XML dialect, and how to properly configure/use said framework.
> But throwing new terms into the mix seems unnecessary, imo.
>
>
> --
> My Sites:
> http://www.techfeed.net/blog/
> http://www.cfquickdocs.com/
> http://cfformprotect.riaforge.org/
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJQ
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:273590
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
